— ee eae cm oo 
----- «..Ἅ 
IE EL ls OS a easiness 


iit~lilitttmeee-ecieeeees 
Ξε 


Ι 


MT 
| 


i 
| 


mn 


tH 


4) sitet ᾿ ‘ 
uP | 1 i} Hf ͵ ἷ H 
‘ eh ' sade 
; 7 ν ‘ERR ΠῚ ΗῚ 
“- ; | ae ΠΗ ΠῚ ΠΗ 
; ΠΗ eee ΤΠ ΠΗ ΠῊΪ 
1 Ἢ i 
yt oN 
ἰ ; | 
2 ᾿ ! i i 
, {  Ν' is "TT ii 
a. ef "lar i ’ oy | 
: ἀν yt 88} 


i 


ΤΠ atdes yy i; ' ' 
jah | ott le seaie ’ 


- δι} ἔν | 
; Serres 
2 
TOs » 
1 a 


RUA Al 
TTT 


ἣν 
ee 


tft 


ἱ 
; 
Κα 


ΠΗ: 


ΠΗ ' 
b 1 


ΠΠΠΠΠΠΝ 


DLE tT 


LNA 


| 
! 


ΠῚ 


rigs) 
pitti 

i 

4) i 
ΗΝ 

p%e 

ii) ! 
tit 1 tH 
avi they 

41} é 
Η τῆι 9 
teil ! 
H 

ἩΠΠΕ 

vf ta 

ἀν δ ' 


==: ve --ς-..ὕ. ----- 
Β — πτῶσιν ΩΝ natn 
— 
-- wee - 
- “παν ᾿ Sel “πω Ὁ» ᾿ 
-- -.» ..»..... 
— 
Ὅλο “ϑῷ ~— 
a = _——_ 
- 
--...-- -............ 
ee A 


all 


pee he 


oh es, 
ν 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/expositionofsecoOOhodgrich 


ἢ 


ν 
i Meg a3 
a hy 


τ 


ἡ f πὶ ἢ 
ἮΝ 


λ t+ 
νῷ hate ᾿ 
᾿ ὙΠ ἢ: 


> ta 


FF 


AN EXPOSITION 


SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


BY 


CHARLES HODGE, D.D., 
" 


PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON, N. J, 


, Ang THE BANG 
UNIVERSITY) 


C4. ..0F 
<4 
Sirron wt: 


NEW YORK: 
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 
"580 BROADWAY. 
1860. 


eee 66900 


3 δι" ) 


“43 _ ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, _ 


US aio Dera ee egy wore 


‘ j 
sete: By 


2 Atinices μεν λνὴν tn ack si amgeeas in the year 1850, by ΤΠ 


em, ’ 


Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District 


aS 
᾿ ἐᾷ 


‘ tA. 
hot oy THA ® » 


UNIVER ITY, 


ovr ne 
Miran kee 


II. CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER I. 


The Salutation, vs. 1.2. Thanksgiving to God for the deliverance and con- 
olation which the writer had experienced, vs. 3-11. Defence of himself 
gainst the charge of inconstancy and inconsistency, vs. 12-24. 


Pauls gratitude for the deliverance and consolation which he 
had experienced. Vs. 1-11. 

Arter the apostle had written his former letter to the Cor- 
inthians, and had sent Titus, either as the bearer of the letter 
or immediately after its having been sent by other hands, to 
ascertain the effect which it produced, he seems to have been 
in a state of unusual depression and anxiety. The persecu- 
tions to which he had been exposed in Asia placed him in 
continued danger of death, 1, 8; and his solicitude about the 
church in Corinth allowed him no inward peace, 7,5. After 
leaving Ephesus he went to Troas; but although the most 
sigan Tg prospects of usefulness there presented themselves, 

e could not rest, but passed over into Macedonia in hopes of 
meeting Titus and obtaining from him intelligence from Cor- 
inth, 2, 12.23. This letter is the outpouring of his heart oc- 
casioned by the information which he received. More than 
any other of Paul’s epistles, it bears the impress of the strong 
feelings under the influence of which it was written: That 
the Corinthians had received his tormer letter with a proper 
spirit, that it brought them to repentance, led them to ex- 
communicate the incestuous person, and called forth, on the 


. 


Se ee ee δ εν αὐλῶν ΟΝ 


2 11. CORINTHIANS 1. 


part of the larger portion of the congregation, the manifesta- 
tion of the warmest affection for the apostle, relieved his 
mind from a load of anxiety, and filled his heart with grati- 
tude to God. On the other hand, the increased boldness and 
influence of the false teachers, the perverting errors which 
they inculcated, and the frivolous and calumnious charges 
which they brought against himself, filled him with indigna- 
tion. This accounts for the abrupt transitions from one sub- 
ject to another, the sudden changes of tone and manner which 
characterize this epistle. When writing to the Corinthians as 
a church obedient, affectionate, and penitent, there is no limit 
to his tenderness and love. His great desire seems to be to 
heal the temporary breach which had occurred between them, 
and to assure his readers that all was forgiven and forgotten, 
and that his heart was entirely theirs. But when he turns to 
the wicked, designing corrupters of the truth among them, 
there is a tone of severity to be found in no other of his writ- 
ings, not even in his epistle to the Galatians. Erasmus com- 
pares this epistle to a river which sometimes flows in a gentle 
stream, sometimes rushes down as a torrent bearing all before 
it; sometimes spreading out like a placid lake; sometimes 
losing itself, as it were, in the sand, and breaking out in 
its fulness in some unexpected place. Though perhaps the 
least methodical of Paul’s writings, it is among the most in- 
teresting of his letters as bringing out the man before the 
reader and revealing his intimate relations to the people for 
whom he laboured. ‘The remark must be borne in mind 
(often made before), that the full play allowed to the peculi- 
arities of mind and feeling of the sacred writers, is in no way 
inconsistent with their plenary inspiration. The grace of 
God in conversion does not change the natural character of 
its subjects, but accommodates itself’ to all their peculiarities 
of disposition and temperament. And the same is true with 
regard to the influence of the Spirit in inspiration. 

The salutation in this epistle is nearly in the same words 
as in the former letter, vs.1.2. Here also as there, the intro- 
duction is a thanksgiving. As these expressions of gratitude 
are not mere forms, but genuine effusions of the heart, they 
vary according to the circumstances under which each epistle 
was written. Here the thanksgiving was for consolation. 
Paul blesses God as the God of all mercy for the consolation 
which he had experienced. He associates, or rather identifies 
himself with the Corinthians; representing his afflictions as 


II. CORINTHIANS 1], 1.2. 3 


theirs and his consolation also as belonging to them, vs. 3—7. 
He refers to the afflictions which came upon him in Asia, so 
that he despaired of life, but through their prayers God who 
had delivered, still delivered, and he was assured, would con- 
tinue to deliver him, vs. 8-11. 


1. 2. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the 
will of God, and Timothy (our) brother, unto the 
church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints 
which are in all Achaia: Grace (be) to you, and peace, 
man God our Father, and (from) our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 


The sense in which the word apostle is to be here taken, 
the force of the expression by the will of God, the scriptural 
meaning of the words church and saints, are all stated in the 
remarks on the first verse of the former epistle. In the first 
epistle Paul associates Sosthenes with himself in the saluta- 
tion; here it is Timothy who is mentioned. In neither case 
is there any community of office or authority implied. On 
the contrary, a marked distinction is made between Paul the 
apostle and Sosthenes or Ler ig At brother, i. e. the Chris- 
tian companion of the apostle. From 1 Cor. 4, 17 it appears 
that Timothy was in Macedonia, on his way to Corinth, when 
the first epistle was written, From the form of expression 
(if Timothy come) in 1 Cor. 16,10, and from the absence of 
any intimation in this epistle that Paul had received from him 
the information from Corinth which he was so desirous to ob- 
tain, it is doubtful whether Timothy had been able to reach 
that city. At any rate he was now with the apostle at Ni- 
copolis or some other city in Macedonia. With all the saints 
which are in all Achaia. This epistle was not intended ex- 
clusively for the Christians in Corinth, but also for all the be- 
lievers scattered through the province who were connected 
with the church in Corinth. These believers were probably 
not collected into separate congregations, otherwise the apos- 
tle would have pede plural form, as when writing to the 
churches of Galatia, Gal. 1,3. Achaia was originally the 
name of the northern part of the Peloponnesus including Cor- 
inth and its isthmus. Augustus divided the whole country 
into the two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia; the former 
included Macedonia proper, Illyricum, Epirus and Thessaly ; 


4 II]. CORINTHIANS 1, 2.3. 


and the latter all the southern part of Greece, | It is in this 
wide sense Achaia is always used in the New Testament. 
From this it appears that the converts to Christianity in 
Greece were at this time very few out of Corinth, as they 
were all members of the church in that city. Grace and 
peace, the favour of God and its fruits, comprehend all the 
benefits of redemption. The apostle’s prayer is not only that 
believers may be the objects of the love of God our Father 
and of Jesus Christ our Lord, but that they may have the 
assurance of that love. He knew that the sense of the love 
of God would keep their hearts in perfect peace. God is our 
Father, Jesus Christ is our Lord. Every one feels the dis- 
tinction in this relationship, whether he reduces it to clear 
conceptions in his own mind or not. God, as God, is our 
father because he is the father of all spirits, and because, if 
believers, we are born again by his Spirit, and adopted as his 
children, made the objects of his love and the heirs of his 
kingdom, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God clothed in 
our nature} is our Lord, for two reasons: first, because as 
God he is our absolute sovereign; and secondly, because. as 
Redeemer he has purchased us by his own most. precious 
blood. To him, therefore, as God and Redeemer, our alle- 
giance as Christians is specially due. 


8. Blessed (be) God, even the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God of all 
comfort. 


This richness and variety of designations for the object of 
his reverence and gratitude, shows how full was the apostle’s 
heart, and how it yearned after fellowship with God, to whom 
he places himself in every possible connection by thus multi- 
plying the terms expressive of the relations which God bears 
to his redeemed people. Blessed. The word εὐλογητός 

blessed ) is used in the New Testament only of God. (In 

uke 1, 28, where the Virgin Mary is spoken of, εὐλογημένη is 
used.) It expresses at once gratitude and adoration. Adored 
be God! is the expression of the highest veneration and 
thankfulness, It is not God merely as God, but as the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the object of the apostle’s 
adoration and gratitude. The expression does not refer to 
the miraculous conception of our Lord, but the person ad- 
dressed is he whose eternal Son assumed our nature, who, as 


II. CORINTHIANS 1, 4. 5 


invested with that nature, is our Lord Jesus Christ. It is he 
who so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, 
that whoso believeth in him might not perish but have 
everlasting life. It is therefore the peculiar, characteristic 
Christian designation of God, as it presents him as the God 
of redemption. Rom, 15, 6. 2 Cor. 11,31. Col. 1,3. 1 Pet. 1, 8. 
This God who has revealed himself as the God of love in 
sending his Son for our redemption, the apostle still further 
designates as the Fiither of mercies, i. e. the most merciful 
Father; he whose characteristic is mercy. Comp. Ps. 86, 5. 15. 
Dan. 9,9. Micah 7,18. The explanation which’ makes the 
expression mean the author of mercies is inconsistent with the 
signification of the word oixrippds, which always means mercy 
as a feeling. Zhe God of all comfort. This most merciful 
Father is the God, i. 6. the author of all, i. e. of all possible, 
consolation, God is the author of consolation not only by 
delivering us from evil, or by ordering our external cireum- 
stances, but also, and chiefly, by his inward influence on the 
mind itself, assuaging its tumults and filling it with joy and 
peace in believing. om. 15, 13, 


4. Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that 
we may be able to comfort them which are in any 


trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are 
comforted of God. 


Us here -refers to the apostle himself. Throughout this 
chapter he is speaking of his own personal trials and consola- 
tions. He blessed God as the author of comfort, because he 
had experienced his consolations. And the design, he adds, 
of in afflicting and in consoling was to qualify him for 
the office of a consoler of the afflicted. In this design Paul 
acquiesced ; he was willing to be thus afflicted in order to be 
the bearer of consolation to others. A life of ease is com- 
monly stagnant. It is those who suffer much and who expe- 
rience much of the comfort of the Holy Ghost, who live 
much. Their life is rich in experience and in resources, Jn 
all our tribulation, i. e. on account of (ἐπί). His tribulation 
was the ground or reason why God comforted him, The 
apostle was one of the most afilicted of men. He suffered 
from hunger, cold, nakedness, stripes, imprisonment, from 
perils by sea and land, from robbers, from the Jews, from the 


6 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 5. 


heathen, so that his life was a continued death, or, as he ex- 
pressed it, he died daily. Besides these external afflictions 
he was overwhelmed with cares and anxiety for the churches. 
And as though all this were not enough, he had “a thorn in 
the flesh, a messenger of Satan,” to buffet him. See 11, 24-30, 
and 12,7. In the midst of all these trials God not only sus- 
tained him, but filled him with such a heroic spirit that he 
actually rejoiced in being thus afflicted. “I take pleasure,” 
he says, “ἴῃ infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in perse- 
cutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, 
then am I strong,” 12,10. This state of mind can be experi- 
enced only by those who are so filled with the love of Christ, 
that they rejoice in every thing, however painful to them- 
selves, whereby his glory is promoted. And where this state 
of mind exists, no afflictions can equal the consolations by 
which they are attended, and therefore the apostle adds, that 
he was enabled to comfort those who were in any kind of 
affliction by the comfort wherewith he was comforted of God. 


5. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so 
our consolation aboundeth by Christ. 


This is a confirmation of what precedes. ‘We are able to 
comfort others, for our consolations are equal to our suffer- 
ings” The sufferings of Christ, do not mean ‘sufferings 
on account of Christ,’ which the force of the genitive case 
does not admit; nor sufferings which Christ endures in his 
own members; but such sufferings as Christ suffered, and 
which his people are called upon to endure in virtue of 
their union with him and in order to be like him. Our Lord 
said to his disciples, ‘‘ Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and 
be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized with,” 
Matt. 20,23. Paul speaks of his fellowship, or participation 
in the suffermgs of Christ, Phil. 3,10; and the apostle Peter 
calls upon believers to rejoice, inasmuch as they are “ par- 
takers of Christ’s sufferings,” 1 Peter 4,24. Comp. Rom. 8, 
17. Col. 1, 24. Gal. 6,17. In many other passages it is taught 
that believers must share in the sufferings, if they are to be 
partakers of the glory of Christ. So, i. e. in equal measure, 
our consolation aboundeth through Christ. As union with 
Christ was the source of the afflictions which Paul endured, 
so it was the source of the abundant consolation which he-en- 
joyed, This makes the great difference between the sorrows 


Il. CORINTHIANS 1, 6.7. 7 


of believers and those of unbelievers. Alienation from Christ 
does not secure freedom from suffering, but it cuts us off 
from the only source of consolation. Therefore the sorrow 
of the world worketh death. 


6, 7. And whether we be afflicted, (it is) for your 
consolation and salvation, which is effectual to the en- 
during of the same suffermgs which we also suffer: or 
whether we be comforted, (it is) for your consolation 
and salvation. And our hope of you (is) stedfast, 
knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so 
(shall ye be) also of the consolation. 


Although the ancient manuscripts differ very much in the 
order in which the several clauses of these verses are ar- 
ranged, yet the sense expressed in all is substantially the 
same. e text adopted by Beza, Griesbach, Knapp, Meyer, 
&c., on the authority of the manuscripts A, C, and several of 
the ancient versions, reads thus, “ Whether we be afllicted, 
(it is) for your consolation and salvation; whether we are 
comforted, (it is) for your consolation, which is effectual in 
enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer; and our 
hope of you is stedfast, knowing that as ye are partakers of 
the suffering, so also (shall ye be) of the consolation.” The 
reading adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Iiickert and oth- 
ers, differs from the common text in placing the clause οὐ 
hope of you is stedfast, immediately after the first member 
of the sentence, and before the words, whether we are com- 
Jorted. For this arrangement are the MSS. B, D, E, F, G, I. 
The reading of Beza gives the text in its simplest and most 
perspicuous form. In either way the main idea is, ‘ Whether 
we be afflicted, it is for your good; or whether we be com- 
forted, it is for your good.’ All the rest is subordinate. The 
relation in which the apostle stood to the Corinthians was’ 
such that he felt assured that they would share both in his 
sufferings and in his consolation, and therefore experience 
the benefit of both. It was not that Paul’s constancy in suf 
fering set them a good example; nor simply that Paul suf- 
fered in behalf of the Gospel, and therefore for the benefit of 
others; nor does he mean merely that the experience of the 
Corinthians would correspond to his, if they were similarly 

1* 


et. ern: eee 


’ 
. 
᾿ 
᾿ 
; 
Ἷ 


8 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 6.7. 


afflicted, they would be similarly comforted; but the main 
idea is that such was the intimate bond between them and 
him that he had a firm hope they would be partakers both of 
his aftliction and of his consolation. Though this appears to 
be the primary idea of the passage, the others are not to be 
excluded. Paul no doubt felt, and intended to intimate, that 
his diversified experience would redound to their advantage 
by qualifying him more abundantly for his work, and especial- 
ly for the office of consoling them in the afflictions which they, 
as well as he, would be called to endure. Whether we be af- 
flicted (it is) for your consolation and salvation ; i. e. my 
afflictions will contribute to your consolation and salvation. 
To the former, because those whom God afflicts, or, who suf 
fer for Christ’s sake and with Christ’s people, God never fails 
to console; to the latter, because suffering and salvation are 
so intimately connected. “If we suffer with him we shall also 
be glorified together,” Rom. 8,17. It is not of suffering as 
suffering that the apostle here speaks. ‘There is no tendency 
in pain to produce holiness. It is only of Christian suffering 
and of the sufferings of Christians, that is, of suffering endured 
for Christ and in a Christian manner, that the apostle says it 
is connected with salvation, or that it tends to work out for 
those who suffer an eternal weight of glory. Or whether we 
be comforted it is for your consolation. ‘That is, our consola- 
tion is also yours. If we are consoled, so are you. If we suf- 
fer together, we rejoice together. - Or, if you suffer as I do, 
you will enjoy similar consolation. My being consoled ena- 
bles me to console you. According to the common text the 
reading here is, “ your consolation and salvation.” But the 
repetition of the words and salvation is not sustained by some 
of the oldest manuscripts, and they do not cohere so well with 
the following clause; as it can hardly be said that “ salva. 
tion is effectual in enduring affliction”? On these grounds, as 
before remarked, Beza and many other editors omit the words 
in question. Which is effectual; that is, which consolation 
is operative or efficacious, not ¢o the enduring, as in our ver- 
sion, but im the enduring (ἐν ὑπομονῇ). ‘This consolation 
shows its eflicacy in the patient endurance of suffering. Ac- 
cording to another interpretation ἐνεργουμένης is taken passive- 
ly, which is wrought out. The sense would then be good, 
‘This consolation is wrought out or experienced in patient 
endurance.’ But as Paul always uses this word actively, the 
rendering adopted in our version is generally and properly 


II. CORINTHIANS 1, 8. 9 


preferred. The same sufferings which I also suffer. The 
sufferings of the Corinthians were the same with those af the 
al because they sympathized in his afflictions, because 
they in a measure suffered as he did, and because their suffer- 
ings were “the sufferings of Christ,” in the same sense that 
his were. They were not only such sufferings as Christ en- 
dured, but they were incurred because those who suffered 
were Christians. And our hope of you is stedfast. That is, 
‘we have a stedfast hope that you will be partakers of our 
consolation” Anowing, i. e. because we know, that as ye are 
partakers of the sufferings, 80 also of the consolation. The 
two go together. ose who share in our sorrows, share in 
our joys. There are two ideas apparently united here as in 
the preceding context. The one is that the sufferings of the 
apostle were also the sufferings of the Corinthians because of 
the union between them. The other is, that his readers were 
in their measure exposed to the same kind of sufferings. In 
this twofold sense they were the xowwvoi, the communicants 
or joint-partakers of his joys and sorrows. 


8. For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant 
of our trouble, which came to us in Asia, that we were 
pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that 
we despaired even of life. 


The apostle confirms from the facts of his recent history, 
what he had said of his afilictions. Asia is probably to be 
, understood here in reference to proconsular Asia, which com- 

rehended the western Pravnoss of Asia Minor, viz., Mysia, 

ydia, Caria, and part of Phrygia. What afflictions and dan- 
gers the apostle here refers to is uncertain, It is generall 
assumed that he alludes to the uproar in Ephesus, of whic 
mention is made in Acts 19, 23-41. But to this it is objected 
that Paul does not appear to have been in personal danger 
during that tumult; that instead of saying in Asia he would 
probably have said in Ephesus, had he referred to that special 
event ; and that the language used seems oa to impl 
a succession and continuance of severe trials, Others think 
that the reference is to some severe illness, But there is 
nothing in the context to indicate that particular form of af- 
fliction. Neither could z//ness naturally be included under 
the “afflictions of Christ,” under which head the apostle com- 


ess ea a? ee eee? re er. a, ΥΑΡΥ ΠΥ ΕΝ 


' 
> 


10 11. CORINTHIANS 1, 9. 


prehends all the afflictions to which in this connection he re- 
fers. The probability is that he alludes to trials of different 
kinds, and especially to plots and attempts against his life. 
He was surrounded by enemies, Jews and heathen, who thirst- 
ed for his blood. And we know, as remarked above, that the 
Acts of the Apostles contains the record of only a small por- 
tion of his afflictions. Zhat we were pressed, ἐβαρήϑημεν, we 
were burdened. The allusion is to a wearied animal that sinks 
in despair under a burden beyond its strength. Out of meas- 
ure, above strength ; if thus separated, the former of these 
phrases refers to the character of his afflictions in themselves, 
‘they were excessive ;’ and the latter, expresses their relation 
to his ability to bear them. Absolutely, they were too great, 
relatively, they were above his strength. Many commenta- 
tors make the former qualify the latter, ‘* We were burdened 
far beyond our strength” (kad ὑπερβολὴν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν). Lnso- 
much that we despaired even of life. ‘The expression is in- 
tensive, ἐξαπορηϑῆναι, to be utterly at a loss, or, absolutely 
without a way (πόρος) of escape. It seemed impossible to the 
apostle that he could escape from the enemies who beset him 
on every side. These enemies were not only men, but perils 
and trials of all kinds, 


9. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, 
that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who 
raiseth the dead. 


So far from expecting to live, the apostle says, on the con- 
trary (ἀλλά) he had in himself the sentence of death. This 
may mean that he was as one who was actually condemned to 
die. God appeared to have passed upon him the sentence of 
death, from which there could be no reprieve. This supposes 
ἀπόκριμα to have the sense of κατάκριμα. This meaning of the 
word is very doubtful. It properly signifies response, answer. 
‘We had in ourselves the answer of death. That is, when he 
put to himself the question, whether life or death was to be 
the issue of his conflicts, the answer was, Death! In other 
words, he did not expect to escape with his life. God brought 
him into these straits in order that he might not trust in him- 
self, but in God who raiseth the dead. ‘These two things are 
so connected that the former is the necessary condition of the 
latter. There is no such thing as implicit confidence or reli- 


II. CORINTHIANS 1], 10,11. 11 


ance on God, until we renounce all confidence in ourself, 
When Paul was convinced that no wisdom nor efforts of his 
own could deliver him from death, then he was forced to rely 
on the power of God. God is here described as he who rais- 
eth the dead, because the apostle’s deliverance was a deliver- 
ance from death. It was only that Being who could call 
the dead to life who could rescue him from the imminent peril 
in which he was placed. So when Abraham’s faith was put 
to the severe trial of believing what was apparently impossi- 
ble, it is said, “Ἢρ believed God who quickeneth the dead, 
and ¢calleth those things which be not.as though they were,” 
Rom. 4,17. Comp. Heb. 11,19. No man until he is tried 
knows how essential the omnipotence of God is as a ground 
of confidence ta his people. They are often placed in cireum- 
stances where nothing short of an almighty helper can give 
them peace. 


10. Who delivered us from so great a death, and 
doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet de- 
liver (us). 


Paul’s trust in God was not disappointed. He did deliver 
him from such a death, i. e. one so fearful and apparently so 
inevitable, It is evident from the whole context that the 
apostle had not only been in imminent peril, but exposed to a 
more than ordinarily painful death. Whether this was from 
disease or from enemies is a matter of conjecture. The latter 
is the more probable. Though he had been delivered from 
the instant and fearful death with which he was threatened, 
the danger was not over. The machinations of his enemies 
followed him wherever he went. He therefore says that God 
had not only delivered, but that he continued to deliver him. 
He was still beset with danger. He was however confident 
for the future. For he adds, i whom we trust, εἰς ὃν ἠλπίκαμεν, 
on whom we have ed our hope that he will also henceforth 
deliver. He did, he does, he will, deliver, ἐῤῥύσατο, ῥύεται, 
ῥύσεται. ‘The experience of past deliverances and mercies is 
the ground of present peace and of confidence for the future. 
These words of Paul sound continually in the ears of the peo- 
ple of God in all times of emergency. 


_. 1]. Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that 


12 11. CORINTHIANS 1, 11. 


for the gift (bestowed) upon us by the means of many 
persons, thanks may be given by many on our behalf. 


Intercessory prayer has great power, otherwise Paul 
would not so often solicit it on his own behalf, and enjoin the 
duty on his readers. His confidence in his safety for the fu- 
ture was not founded simply on the experience of God’s past. 
mercy, but also on the prayers of Christians in his behalf. 
God will yet deliver me, he says, you also helping together by 
prayer. That is, provided you join your prayers with those 
of others for my safety. 7elping together probably refers to 
their co-operation in the work of intercession with other 
churches, rather than with the apostle himself. The design 
of God in thus uniting his people in praying for each other 
when in affliction or danger, is that the deliverance may be 
matter of common gratulation and praise. Thus all hearts 
are drawn out to God and Christian fellowship is promoted. 
This is expressed in the latter part of this verse; that, i. e. in 
order that the gift being bestowed on us by means of many 
(διὰ πολλῶν) thanks may be rendered by many (ἐκ πολλῶν). 
In the Greek it is ἐκ πολλῶν προσώπων, Which most commenta- 
tors render as our translators do, by many persons. The 
word πρόσωπον, however, always elsewhere in the New Testa- 
ment means face or presence, which sense many retain here. 
‘That thanks may be rendered from many (upturned) faces. 
According to the interpretation given above, the words dia 
πολλῶν are connected with τὸ χάρισμα, “the favour to us by 
means of many;” and ἐκ πολλῶν προσώπων with εὐχαρεσϑῇ, 
‘thanks may be rendered by many persons (or faces)? This 
gives a good sense, and is perhaps better suited to the force 
of the prepositions ἐκ and διά, It is more correct to say that 
the ‘favour was (διά) by means of many,’ i. 6. by means of 
their prayer, than that it ‘was (éx) owt of, or by,’ as express- 
ing the efficient cause. The order of the clauses, however, 
favours the connection adopted by our translators. ‘The fa- 
vour was by many persons, and the thanks to be rendered by 
means of many.’ This construction of the sentence is also 
sanctioned by the majority of commentators, 


Lhe apostles defence against the charge of inconstancy 
Vs. 12-24, 


Paul had informed the Corinthians that it was his purpose 


11. CORINTHIANS 1, 12. 13 


to go direct from Ephesus to Corinth, thence into Macedonia, 
and back again to Corinth; vy. 16. ‘This plan he had been in- 
duced to modify before the former epistle was sent, as in 
1 Cor. 16, 5 he tells them he would not visit them until he 
had passed through Macedonia. On this slight ground his 
enemies in Corinth represented him as saying one thing and 
meaning another. They seem also to have made this an oc- 
easion for charging him with like inconsistency in doctrine. 
If his word could not be depended on in small matters, what 
dependence could be placed on his preaching? Paul shows 
there was no levity or insincerity involved in this change of 
his plans, and no inconsistency in his preaching; but that to 
spare them he had deferred his visit to Corinth, vs, 12-24. 


12. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our 
conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not 
in fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have 
had our conversation in the world, and more abundant- 
ly to you-ward. 


The connection between this verse and what precedes, as 
indicated by the particle for, is, ‘I look for your sympathy in 
my afilictions, and for your preven in my behalf, for my con- 
science bears testimony to the simplicity and sincerity of m 
conversation among you. Unless we are conscious of integri- 
ty towards others, we cannot be assured of their confidence in 
us. Our rejoicing, says Paul, is this, the testimony of our 
conscience. This may mean that the testimony of conscience 
was the ground of his rejoicing. This assumes a metonymical 
sense of the καύχησις, a meaning which is often attributed to 
the word. But as the word may express the inward feeling 
of exultation as well as the oslsgiare expression of it, which 
latter is its proper sense, the meaning may be (without assum- 
ing any metonomy), ‘My joyful confidence consists in the 
consciousness of sincerity.” The testimony of the conscience 
is consciousness; and that of which Paul was conscious was 
integrity. And that consciousness sustained and elevated 
him. It was in its nature a joy. What follows is explanato- 
ry. His conscience testified that in simplicity and godly sin- 
cerity, &c. The word ἁπλότης means singleness of mind, the 
opposite of duplicity. The ancient manuscripts A, B, C, read 


‘ee | mn a i a Ψ τ »αν 


eT 


14 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 12. 


ἁγιότης, purity or sanctity, which the recent editors generally © 
adopt. The former word is much more common in. Paul’s 
writings, and is better suited to the following term, εἰλικρίνεια, 
which,means translucence, clearness, sincerity of mind. It is 
called the sincerity of God, which our translators explain as 
meaning godly sincerity, either in the sense of religious, as . 
distinguished from mere natural sincerity as a moral virtue; 
or in the sense of divine, what comes from God. The latter 
is the true explanation. It is the sincerity which God gives. 
The Bible often uses such expressions as “ the peace of God,” 
“joy of the Spirit,” &c., meaning the peace or joy of which 
God or the Spirit is the author. There is a specitic difference 
between moral virtues and spiritual graces, although they are 
called by the same names. Simplicity, sincerity, meekness, . 
long-suffermg, when the fruits of the Spirit differ from the | 

moral virtues designated by those terms, as many external 
things, though similar in appearance, often differ in their in-. 
ward nature. A religious man and a moral man may be very 
much alike in the eyes of men, though the inward life of the 
latter is human, and that. of the former is divine. What Paul 
means here to say is, that the virtues which distinguished, his 
deportment in Corinth were not merely forms of his own ex- 
cellence, but. forms of the divine life; modes in which the 
Spirit of God which dwelt in. him manifested itself. This is 
expressed more clearly in what follows. Vot in jfleshly wis- 
dom, that is, not in that wisdom which has its origin in our 
own nature. The familiar meaning of the word flesh in the 
New Testament, especially in the writings of St. Paul, is hu- 
man nature as it now is, as distinguished from the Spirit of 
God. “Ye are not in the flesh,” says this apostle, “ but in 
the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you,” Rom. 
8,9. As our nature is corrupt, natural or fleshly necessarily 
involves more or less the idea of corruption. The natural 
man, carnal mind, fleshly wsdom, all imply that idea more or 
less, according to the context. Lleshly wisdom, therefore, is 
that kind of wisdom which tnrenewed men are wont to ex- 
hibit, wisdom guided by principles of self-interest’ or expedi- 
ency. It stands opposed to the grace of God. Paul was not 
guided by the former, but by the latter. The grace of God 
controlled his conduct; and. by grace is here meant, as sa 
often elsewhere, the gracious iniluences of the Spirit. We 
have had our conversation ; ἀνεστράφημεν, we moved about, we 
sonducted ourselves. The expression includes all the mani- 


II. CORINTHIANS 1, 18. 14. 15 


festations of his inward life. Jn the world, i. e. among men 
generally; and more especially to you-ward. That is, the 
evidence of my sincerity is much more abundant to you than 
to others. The Corinthians had enjoyed more opportunities 
of learning the character of the apostle, and of seeing his sim- 
plicity and integrity, than the world, or men outside of the 
church, had possessed. He could therefore the more confi 
dently assume that they confided in him. 


13. 14. For we write none other things unto you, 
than what ye read or acknowledge, and I trust ye shall 
acknowledge even to the end; as also ye have ac- 
knowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, 
even as ye also (are) ours in the day of the Lord 
Jesus, 


The same sincerity and honesty marked his correspond- 
ence that characterized his life. He never wrote one thing 
and meant another, The connection with the preceding verse 
is, ‘We are perfectly honest, for we write none other things 
than what ye read.’ The simple, obvious meaning of my let- 
ter, is the true meaning. write, i.e. 1 mean none other 
things than what you understand me to intend when you 
read my letters, or know from other sources. The word 
ἐπιγινώσκετε may be rendered as in our version, ye acknowl- 
edge. 'The sense would then be, ‘I mean nothing:else but 
what you read or acknowledge to be my meaning,” But this 
is not so clear. The design of the apostle is to show that his 
purposes really were what his letters indicated, or what the 
Corinthians, by other means, had been led to understand them 
to be. The words are, “ Ye read, or also (ἢ καί) know,” and 
I trust ye shall acknowledge to the end. ‘This clause may be 
connected with what precedes. ‘I mean what you know, and 
I trust shall continue to acknowledge, to be my meaning.’ 
That is, ‘I have confidence that you will not misunderstand 
or misinterpret my intentions until we all come to the end ;? 
ἕως τέλους, to the end, either of life, or of the world, A much 
better sense is obtained by connecting this clause with what 
follows, so that the clause (ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν), that we are 
your rejoicing, is the object of the verb (ἐπιγνώσεσϑε) ye shall 


16 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 15. 16. 


acknowledge. “1 trust ye shall acknowledge unto the end 
(as ye have acknowledged us in part), that we are your re- 
joicing” The verb ἐπιγινώσκειν combines the ideas of recog- 
nition and of complete knowledge. The words 7m part are 
most naturally referred to the Corinthians, ye iz part, 1. e. a 
part of you. Paul knew that there were some in Corinth 
who did not. rejoice in him. Others understand them to 
qualify the verb. It was only a partial recognition of him 
that the Corinthians had as yet manifested. Compare 1 Cor, 
13, 12, “1 know in part.” This, however, would give a tone 
of reproach to the language which is foreign to the charac- 
ter of the passage. We are your rejoicing, i. e. the ground 
of your exultation and delight.. As ye also ours, in the day 
of the Lord Jesus. Paul believed that in the day of the Lord 
Jesus the Corinthians would rejoice over him as he would re- 
joice over them. In that day they would appreciate the 
blessedness of having had him for their teacher, as he would 
rejoice in having had them for his converts. The joy, how- 
ever, which he anticipated in its fulness when Christ should 
come, was in a measure already theirs. ‘ We are, and shall 
be, your rejoicing, as ye are and shall be ours, in the day of 
the Lord Jesus.’ Instead of rendering ὅτι in the above clause 
that many commentators render it because, This gives a dif- 
ferent. sense to the whole passage. ‘We hope you will ac- 
knowledge—because we are your rejoicing, as ye are ours.’ 
This, however, leaves the verb acknowledge without an object. 
What were they to acknowledge? We may indeed supply 
from the context the words our sincerity, but it is more natural 
so to construe the passage as to avoid the necessity of supply- 
ing any thing. The sense also is better according to the com- 
mon interpretation. Paul does not design to prove that the 
Corinthians confided in him because he was their rejoicing, 
which would be to prove a thing by itself. | 


15. 16. And in this confidence I was minded to 
come to you before that ye might have a second bene- 
fit; to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again 


out gf Macedonia unto you, and of you to be. brought 
on my way to Judea. | 


And in this confidence, that is, in the confidence that we 


II. CORINTHIANS 1, 1%, 17 


are your rejoicing, Paul was not afraid to go to Corinth. 
He did not doubt that the great majority of the church would 
receive him with confidence and affection. The change in the 
plan of his journey arose, as he atterwards states, from very 
different motives. Paul says he was minded, i. 6, intended to 
come to them before, i. 6. before going to Macedonia ; that ye 
might have a second benefit, i. e. the benefit of seeing me 
twice, once before going to Macedonia, and again after my 
return. The other explanation of this passage is, that second 
here refers to his first visit to Corinth. The first benefit was 
their conversion, the second would be the good effects to be 
anticipated from another visit. But it apes from 12, 14 
and other passages that Paul had already been twice in 
Corinth, aid therefore he could not speak of his intended 
visit as the second; and the word second here evidently 
refers to the word before. He was to see them before and 
after _ Going to Macedonia. Benefit, χαρίν, grace, a term 
pene y in the New Testament used of religious blessings, 
‘he word sometimes signifies joy, so the sense here may 
be, ‘That ye might have the pleasure of seeing me twice.’ 
The former explanation is not only better suited to the com- 
mon use of the word, but also gives a higher sense. And 
of you to be brought on my way to Judea. ἹΠροπεμϑῆναι, 
to be brought on my way, i.e.to be aided in my journey. 
The word often, and perhaps most frequently, means ¢o escort 
on a journey, or to furmish with the means of travelling, 
Acts 15, 3. 20,38. &c. In ancient times when there were no 
established modes of travelling, it was customary for the 
friends of the traveller in one city to send him forward to the 
next, or at least to escort him on his way. This office of 
friendship Paul was willing and desirous to receive at the 


-hands of the Corinthians. He was not alienated from them. 


And his purpose to seek this kindness from them was a proof 
of his confidence in their affection for him, 


17. When therefore I was thus minded did I use 
lightness ἢ or the things that I purpose, do I purpose 
according to the flesh, that with me there should be 
yea, yea, and nay, nay ὃ | 


Paul did not execute the plan of his journey above indi- 
cated, His having changed his purpose was the ground 


_ at =e “te + — Ff, ———- = 


18 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 17. 


of atwofold charge against him; first, of levity, and secondly, 
of inconsistency ; saying one thing, and doing another; or 
saying one thing at one time, and the opposite at another, so 
that he was utterly untrustworthy either as a man or as a 
teacher. This was indeed a slight foundation on which to 
rest such a charge. It is no wonder therefore that it excited 
the apostle’s indignation. The first charge is that he used 
lightness, i. 6. that in purposing to visit Corinth and in an- 
nouncing his purpose he had no serious intention of doing 
what he promised. It was a careless, inconsiderate avowal 
such as none but a man of levity would make. In the Greek 
the article is used (τῇ éAadpia) the lightness, which may mean, 
the lightness with which they charged him; or that which 
belongs to our nature; or it may have no more force than 
when used in other cases before abstract nouns. Or the things 
that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh? The 
first charge related to the past, did I use lightness? This 
relates to his general character. ‘Am I habitually governed 
in my plans by the flesh,’ i. 6. am 1 influenced and controlled 
by those considerations which govern ordinary men, who have 
nothing to guide them but their own corrupt nature? The 
word jlesh here, as in v. 12, stands for our whole nature, con- 
sidered as distinguished from the Spirit of God. All who are 
not spiritual (governed by the Spirit) are, according to the 
Scripture, carnal (governed by the flesh). What Paul there- 
fore intends to deny in these two questions, is that his original 
purpose of visiting Corinth was formed in levity, and second- 
ly, that his plans in general were controlled by worldly or 
selfish considerations. That with me there should be yea, yea, 
and nay, nay. That (ἵνα) here expresses the result, not the 
design. ‘Dol so act after the flesh that the consequence 
is,’ &c, The repetition of the particles yea, yea, and nay, nay, * 
is simply intensive, as in Matthew 5, 37, “ Let your communi- 
cation be yea, yea, and nay, nay.” The meaning, therefore, 
is, ‘Do I affirm and deny the same thing? Do I say both 
yes and no at the same time and in reference to the same 
subject ? Is no dependence to be placed on my word?’ This 
is the common interpretation and the one demanded by the 
context. Many commentators from Chrysostom downwards 
give a very different view of the passage. They understand 
the apostle to defend himself for his change of plan by saying 
that he was not like men of the world who obstinately ad- 
hered to their purposes, without regard to the manifested will 


11. CORINTHIANS 1, 18. 19 


of God, so that with him a yea should be yea, and a nay, nay, 
let what would be the consequence. But in the 18th v. this 
interpretation is impossible, because it is there simply “ yea 
and nay.” ‘That verse therefore determines the meaning of 
this. Besides, what he goes on to defend himself against is 
not a charge of obstinacy, but of saying first one thing and 
then another. Luther’s translation assumes still another in- 
terpretation. “Are my purposes carnal? Not so, but my 
yea is yea, and my nay is nay.” But this arbitrarily intro- 
duces into the text what is not expressed, and thus changes 
the whole sense. 


18. But as God is true, our word towards you was 
not yea and nay. | 


That is, ‘My preaching, or the doctrine which I preached, 
was not inconsistent and contradictory. I did not preach first 
one thing and then another” This sudden transition from the 
question as to his veracity as a man to his consistency as a 
everictog shows two things; first, that his enemies had 

rought both charges against him, founding the latter on the 
former; and secondly, that Paul was much more concerned 
for the gospel than for his own is tron They might ac- 
cuse him, if they pleased, of breaking his word; but when 
they charged him with denying Christ, that was a very differ- 
ent affair. He therefore drops the first charge and turns ab- 
ruptly to the second. ‘Whatever you may think of my ve- 
racity as a man, as God is true, my preaching was not yea and 
nay,’ i.e. unworthy of confidence. As God is true. The 
words are, God is faithful, that, ὅσο. Comp. 1 Cor. 1,9. 10, 
13. 1 Thess, 5,24. They may be iia deveteien as an appeal to 
the fidelity of God as the ground and evidence of the truth 
and reliableness of his preaching. ‘God is faithful, that our 
preaching is not yea and nay. That is, his fidelity secures 
the trustworthiness of the gospel. It is his word and there- 
fore is unchangeably true. It abideth forever. ‘If, says the 
apostle, ‘there is no dependence to be placed on my word, 
God is trustworthy. My preaching, which is his word, is to 
be relied upon. ‘That is not yea and nay, but firm and true.’ 
It must be admitted, however, that this interpretation is con- 
strained; it is not the simple meaning of the words. The 
passage must be paraphrased to get this sense out of it. It is 


ae “dh 


ΞΡ ον ee eG ΠΤ ty OY er! he eS 


20 1: CORINTHIANS 1, 18. 


perhaps better with our translators, after Calvin, Beza, and 
many other commentators, ancient and modern, to take the 
words as an asseveration. So true as God is faithful, so true 
is it, that, &c. Comp. 11,10, ἔστιν 4 ἀλήϑεια Χριστοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, 
ὅτι, Rom, 14,11, ζῶ ἐγώ---ὅτι, as I live—every knee shall bow 
to me. Judith 12, 4, ζῇ ἡ ψυχή σου---ὅτι. It is therefore ac- 
cording to the usage of the language to understand πιστὸς ὃ 
Jeds—ore as an oath, and the sense given is much more natu- 
ral, An oath isan act of worship. To predict that men shall 
everywhere swear by the name of Jehovah, Is. 65, 16, is to 
predict that Jehovah shall everywhere be worshipped. Men 
may, therefore, appeal to God for the truth of what they say 
on any solemn occasion, if they do it devoutly as an act of 
worship. It is a formal recognition of his being, of his om- 
niscience, of his holiness and power, and of his moral govern- 
ment. Our Lord himself did not refuse to answer when put 
upon his oath, Matt. 27,63; and the apostles often call on 
God to witness the truth of their declarations. When, there- - 
fore, our Saviour commands us, “ Swear not at all,” he must 
be understood to forbid profane swearing, that is, calling on. . 
God in an irreverent manner and on trivial occasions. Zhat 
our word towards you was not yea and nay ; ὃ λόγος ἡμῶν. 
This may mean our preaching, 1 Cor. 1,17. 2, 1.4, and often; 
or, our word generally, i. e. what I said. The apostle may be 
understood to assert the truth and consistency of his instrue- 
tions as a teacher, or the trustworthiness of his declarations 
and promisesasaman. The decision depends on the context. 
In favour of the latter it is urged that the charge against him, 
as intimated in v. 17, was that of breaking his promise, and 
therefore to make this verse refer to his preaching is to make 
him evade the point entirely. But the following verses, which 
are intimately connected with the one before us, clearly refer 
to matters of doctrine, and therefore this verse must have the 
same reference. The sudden transition from the charge of 
levity in v. 17, to that of false doctrine in vy. 18, as before re- 
marked, is sufficiently accounted for from the association of 
the two charges in the minds of his enemies, They said he 
was not to be depended upon as a preacher, because he had 
shown himself to be untrustworthy asa man. “As God is | 
true, my preaching is true.” ‘The one is as true as the other. 
Hence in Gal. 1, 8 he pronounces an angel accursed should he 
preach another gospel. Paul’s confidence in the truth of the 
gospel as he preached it was one and the same with his confi- 


II. CORINTHIANS 1, 19. 21 


dence in God. To tell him that his preaching was not to be 
depended upon, was in his mind the same as to say that God 
was not to be believed; for he knew that he was the infallible 
organ of God in all his teaching. 1 John 5, 10. 


19. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was 
preached among you by us, (even) by me and Silvanus 
and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. 


My preaching is true, for Christ is true. There is no con- 
tradiction, no yea and nay, in him, therefore there is no con- 
tradiction in my doctrine. There was no room in Paul’s mind 
for doubt as to his preaching being a trustworthy exhibition 
of the ley and work of Christ, and therefore if Christ be 
one and the same, i. e. self-consistent truth, so was his doc- 
trine or teaching. With such self-evidencing light and irre- 
sistible conviction does the Spirit attend his communications 
to the human mind. Even in ordinary religious experience, 
the testimony of the Spirit becomes the testimony of conscious- 
ness, Much more was this the case when plenary inspiration 
was combined with the sanctifying power of the truth. Zhe 
Son of God, Jesus Christ ; that 1s, Christ, who is the Son of 
God, the same in nature with the eternal Father, and because 
he is the Son, and, therefore, eternally and immutably true, 
was not yea and nay. There was nothing in him contradicto- 
ry or untrustworthy. This Christ. was preached in Corinth 
by Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. These persons are men- 
tioned because the apostle probably refers to his first visit to 
Corinth when they were his companions. Acts 18,5. His 
appeal is to the experience of his readers. They had found 

rist to be the way, the truth and the life. He had been 
made unto them wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and re- 
demption. 1 Cor. 1,32. By Christ here the apostle does 
not mean the doctrine of Christ. He does not intend to as- 
sert simply that there was perfect consistency in his own 
preaching, and that it agreed with the preaching of his associ- 
ates. - The truth asserted is that Christ, the Son of God, had 
not been manifested among them, or experienced by them to 
be unsatisfying or uncertain, but in him was yea. That is, 
he was simple truth. Jn Aim, i. 6. in Christ, was truth. He 
proved himself to be all that was affirmed of him. He was 
and continued to be (γέγονεν) all that they had been led to. 


22 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 20. 


expect. Let, therefore, what will become of me and of my 
reputation for veracity, Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, 
and forever. 3 


20. For all the promises of God in him are yea, 
and in him amen, unto the glory of God by us. 


This verse is the confirmation of what precedes. Christ 
was, and is, not yea and nay, not uncertain and inconsistent, 
for in him all the promises of God were fulfilled. All that 
God had promised relative to the salvation of man met its full 
accomplishment in him. Instead of, all the promises, the 
Greek is, as many promises. That is, as many promises as 
had from the beginning been made as to what the Messiah 
was to be and todo. Jn him were the yea. That is, in him 
they found their affirmation or accomplishment. The article 
(τὸ vai), the yea, has reference to the promises, Christ, as re- 
gards the promises of God, was the yea, i. e. their affirmation 
and accomplishment. And in him the Amen. This is say- 
ing in Hebrew what had just been said in Greek; Amen be- 
ing equivalent to yea. It is not unusual with the sacred 
writers to give solemn or impressive formulas in both lan- 
guages, The promises of God are amen in Christ, because he 
is the sum and substance of them. He says in a sense which 
includes the idea here expressed, “1 am the truth,” John 14, 
6; and in Rey. 3,7 he is designated as “He that is true;” 
and in Rey. 3, 14 he is called, “The Amen, the faithful and 
true witness.” The common text, which is expressed in our 
version, has the support of the manuscripts D, fk, I, K, which 
read καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ, and in him. A, B, C, F, G have διὸ καὶ δὶ 
αὐτοῦ, wherefore also through him the Amen, This reading, 
which most recent editions adopt, was preferred by Calvin, 
who renders the passage, guare et per ipsum sit Amen. The 
Vulgate has the same reading, ideo et per ipsum Amen. The 
sense thus expressed is certainly better and fuller. The verse 
then teaches not only that the promises of God receive their 
confirmation in Christ, but also that we experience and. assent 
to their truth. We say Amen, it is even so, to all God had 
promised, when we come to know Christ. Zo the glory of 
God by us. As these words are commonly pointed the natu- 
ral interpretation is, that by us, i. e. by the preaching of the 
apostles, men are brought thus to say Amen to the divine 
promises, to the glory of God. God is glorified by the faith 


λα μεν 


Il. CORINTHIANS 1, 21. 22. 23 


in his promises thus expressed. The words, however, admit 
of a different construction. By us may be connected with 
the first part of the clause. ‘The Amen is said by us to the 
glory of God” This may mean, ‘ We Christians render a glad 
assent to the promises thus ratified in Christ But «s in the 
immediate context refers to the apostles, and therefore cannot 
be naturally here made to refer to Christians generally. Or, 
the meaning may be, ‘ By us apostles testimony is given to the 
truth of the promises, to the glory of God? This last-men- 
tioned interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the scrip- 
tural use of the expression “to say Amen,” which means sim- 
ply to assent to, or to sanction, 1 Cor, 14,16. The apostles 
did not say Amen to the promises by preaching the gospel; 
but through their preaching men were bronght to say Amen; 
that is, they were led to the joyful experience and avowal of 
faith in what God had promised. In Christ, therefore, the 
promises were fulfilled; and in him also men were brought, 
through the apostles, joyfully to assent to them. Bengel’s 
pithy comment on this verse is; Vae respectu Dei promitten- 
tis, anien respectu credentium, “He that hath received his 
testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true.’ John 3, 33. 
1 John ὅ, 9.10. To receive God’s testimony concerning his 
Son, to say Amen, and to believe, all mean the same thing. 


21. 22. Now he which stablisheth us with you in 
Christ, and hath anointed us, (is) God; who hath also 
sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our 
hearts. 


In the preceding verse the apostle had spoken of Christ as 
the truth and substance of all the divine promises, and of the 
cordial assent which believers gave to those promises; he here 
brings into view God as the author and preserver of their 
faith, who would assuredly grant them the salvation of which 
he had already given them the foretaste and the pledge. Now 
ne; or, but he who stablisheth us with you in Christ. The 
word is 6 βεβαιῶν, who renders firm or stedfast ; i. 6. who 
causes us with you to stand firm, εἰς Χριστόν, in reference to 
Christ, so that we-adhere to him with unshaken constancy. 
As by the pronouns we and us, in what precedes, the apostle 
had meant himself and Silas and Timothy, here where he has 

2 ‘ 


24 Il. CORINTHIANS 1, 21. 22. 


reference to all believers he unites them with himself, ws with 
you. ‘The constancy in faith which God gave was not a ἘΞ 
peculiar to teachers, but common to all true Christians. And 
hath anointed us. Kings, prophets, and priests were anointed 
when inaugurated in their several offices ; to anoint may there- 
fore mean to qualify by divine influence, and thereby to au- 
thorize any one to discharge the duties of any office. In 
Luke 4, 18 our Lord applies. to himself the language of Isaiah 
61,1, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath 
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.? Acts 4, 27. 
10,38. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy 
Ghost.” In like manner Christians are spoken of as anointed, 
because by the Spirit they are consecrated to God and qualli- 
fied for his service. 1 John 2, 20.27. When Paul says here, 
hath anointed us, he means by ws all Christians, and of course 
the anointing to which he refers is that which is common to 
all believers. This is plain, 1. Because the object of the two 
participles, βεβαιῶν and χρίσας, here used, must be the same; 
‘who establisheth ws, and hath anointed ws” But with the 
former Paul expressly associates the Corinthians. He says, 
us with you. They as well as he were the subjects of the 
confirmation, and therefore also of the anointing. 2, What 
follows of sealing and receiving the earnest of the Spirit, can- 
not with any propriety be restricted to ministers. 3. In the 
New Testament official anointing is spoken of only in relation 
to Christ, never of apostles or preachers; whereas believers 
are said to receive the unction of the Holy Spirit. The de- 
sign of the apostle is not, as some of the later commentators 
say, to assert that God had given to him the assurance of the 
Spirit as to his fidelity in preaching the gospel; but to show 
that believers were indebted to God for their faith, and that he 
would certainly cause them to persevere. Js God; God it is 
who confirms and anoints his people. Comp. 5, 5 for a simi- 
larly constructed passage. This is the common and natural 
explanation. Billroth and Olshausen render it thus: ‘God, 
who establishes and anointed us, also sealed us” But this 
makes the first part of the verse too subordinate ; the sealing 
is not the dominant idea. It is only one of the several bene- 
fits specified. It is God who establishes, anoints, seals and 
gives the earnest of the Spirit. Who also hath sealed us. A 
seal is used, 1. To indicate proprietorship. 2. To authenti- 
cate or prove to be genuine, 3, To preserve safe or inviolate, 


δι. | 


᾿. 
, 
. 
4 


II. CORINTHIANS 1, 22. 25 


The Holy Spirit, which in one view is an unction, in another 
view is a seal. He marks those in whom he dwells as belong- 
ing to God. They bear the seal of God upon them. Rev. 7, 
2. 2Tim. 2,19. Act. Thom. ὃ 26, 6 ϑεὸς διὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ σφραγῖ- 
dos ἐπιγινώσκει τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα, God knows by his seal his own 
sheep. He also bears witness in the hearts of believers that 
they are the children of God. He authenticates them to 
themselves and others as genuine believers. And he effectu- 
ally secures them from apostasy and perdition. Eph. 1,3. 4, 
30. This last idea is amplified in the next clause; and hath 
given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. The Holy 
Spirit is itself the earnest, i. e. at once the foretaste and pledge 
of redemption. The word ἀῤῥαβών, pledge, is a Hebrew word, 
which passed as a mercantile term, probably from the Pheni- 
cian, into the Greek and Latin. It is properly that part of 
the purchase money paid in advance, as a security for the re- 
mainder. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of 
his people, is that part of the blessings of redemption, which 
God gives them as a pledge of their full and final salvation. 
So certain, therefore, as the Spirit dwells in us, so certain is 
our final salvation, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his... But if the Spirit of him that raised up 
Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ 
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
Spirit that dwelleth in you,” Rom. 8, 9-11. The indwelling 
of the Spirit is therefore ealled the first-fruits of redemption. 
Rom. 8, 23. Comp. Eph, 1,14. 2 Cor. 5,5. There is but one 
thing stated in these verses, and that is that God establishes 
or renders his people firm and secure in their union with 
Christ, and in their participation of the benefits of redemption. 
Hlow he does this, and the evidence that he does it, is ex- 
pressed or presented by saying he hath anointed, sealed, and 
given us the earnest of the Spirit. The indwelling of the 
Spirit, therefore, renders the believer secure and steadfast; it 
is his anointing ; it is the seal of God impressed upon the soul, 
and therefore the pledge of redemption. The fruits of the 
Spirit are the only evidence of his presence; so that while 
those who experience and manifest those fruits may rejoice in 
the certainty of salvation, those who are destitute of them 
have no right to appropriate to themselves the consolation of 
this and similar declarations of the word of God. The perse- 
verance of the saints is a perseverance in holiness, 


ae 


26 1. CORINTHIANS 1, 23. 24, 


23. Moreover, I call God for a record upon my 
soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth. 


Paul here returns to the original charge. The complaint 
against him for not having executed his purpose of going at 
once from Ephesus to Corinth, he had left on one side to meet 
the more serious charge of inconsistency in his teaching. 
Having answered that accusation, he here says, But I sparing 
you, 1. 6. for the sake of avoiding giving you pain, came not 
again to Corinth. The obvious implication is, that such was 
the state of things in Corinth that had he gone there immedi- 
ately on leaving Ephesus, as he had originally intended, he 
would have been obliged to appear among them with a rod, 
1 Cor. 4,21. It was to avoid that necessity, and to give them 
the opportunity to correct abuses before he came, that he had 
deferred his visit. As there was no available testimony by 
which the apostle could prove that such was his motive, he 
confirms it by an oath. J invoke God as a witness, i. 6.1 
call upon the omniscient God, who is the avenger of all perju- 
ry, to bear testimony to the truth of what I say. “An oath 
for confirmation is the end of all strife,” Heb. 6, 16. All the 
bonds of society are loosened, and all security of life and prop- 
erty is lost, if men are not to be believed upon their oaths. 
This shows that human society depends on the sanctity of 
an oath; and as the oath derives all its sacredness from faith 
in God, as the providential and moral governor of the world, 
it is obvious that society cannot exist without religion. Su- 
perstition and false religion, although great evils, are far bet- 
ter than atheism. The words ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν, rendered on 
my soul, may mean against my soul; or, I summon God to 
me as a witness. The latter idea includes the former, for, as 
Calvin says, “‘ He who uses God as a witness, cites the punish- 
er of falsehood.” 


24, Not for that we have dominion over your faith, 
but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. 


This is intended to moderate and explain what precedes, 
‘When I speak of sparing you, I do not wish to intimate that I 
consider myself the lord over your faith” Not for that, οὐχ ὅτι, 
equivalent to, J do not say that we have dominion over your 
faith, Some say faith is here used for believers, (the abstract 
for the concrete,) we have not dominion over believers; or, as 


11. CORINTHIANS 1, 24. 27 


St. Peter says, are not lords over God’s heritage. 1 Pet. 5, 3. 
Others say faith here means faith-life; we haye not dominion 
over your Christian life. Both of these interpretations are 
unnatural and unnecessary. The word is to be taken in its 
ordinary sense. Paul disclaims all authority over their faith, 
either as a man or as an apostle. It was not for him, and if 
not for him, surely for no other man or set of men, to deter- 
mine what they should believe. He called upon the Galatians 
to denounce him, or even an angel from heaven, as accursed, 
ii he preached another gospel. Gal. 1,8. Faith rests not on 
the testimony of man, bad on the testimony of God. When 
we believe the Scriptures, it is not man, but God whom we 
believe. Therefore faith is subject not to man but to God 
alone. This is perfectly consistent with the plenary inspira- 
tion of the apostles, and with our confidence in them as the 
infallible witnesses of the truth. When a man speaks through 
a trumpet, it is the man and not the trumpet that we believe. 
Or when we read a printed page, we have confidence in the 
trustworthiness of the words as symbols of thought, but it is 
the mind expressed by those symbols with which we are in 
communion. So the apostles were but the organs of the Holy 
Ghost; what they spoke as such, they could not recall or 
modify. What they should communicate was not under their 
control; they were not the lords, so to speak, of the gospel, 
so that they could make it what they pleased. Not at all; 
they were as much subject to the communication which they 
received, and as much bound to believe what they were made 
the instruments of teaching, as other men. Paul therefore 
ot ye himself alongside of his brethren, not over them as a 
ord, but as a joint-believer with them in the πον which he 
preached, and ὦ helper of their joy. That is, his office was to 
co-operate with them in the a eer of their spiritual wel- 
fare. It was not the end of the apostleship to give pain or to 
inflict punishment, but to promote the real happiness of the 
people. Lor by faith ye stand. The meaning of this clause 
is doubtful. Taken by themselves the words may mean, ‘ Ye 
stand firm or independently as to faith. This would suit the 
connection as indicated by for. ‘ We are not lords over your 
faith, but merely helpers, for you stand independently as to 
faith. Or the meaning may be what is expressed in our ver- 
sion, ‘ Ye stand dy faith Then the connection, as explained 
by Calvin, is, ‘Since it is the effect and nature of faith to sus- 
tain or cause you to stand, it is absurd that it should be sub- 


28 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 24. 


ject to man, or that we should have dominion over your 
faith. This, however, is rather an obscure argument. Ac- 
cording to Meyer the connection is with the immediately pre- 
ceding words, ‘We are helpers of your joy, because ye are 
steadtast as to faith. That is, steadfastness in faith is necessa- 
ry to joy. The most natural interpretation probably is that 
given by Erasmus: fidei nomine nullum habemus in vos domi- 
nium, in qua perseveratis; sed est in vita quod in vobis cor- 
rectum volebam. ‘ Over your faith I have no dominion, for in 
that ye stand; but, when I speak of not sparing, I had refer- 
ence to your conduct.’ He had authority in matters of dis- 
cipline, but not in matters of faith. As to the latter, he and 
they were equally under subjection to the revelation of God, , 
‘He indeed, as the organ of the Spirit, could declare infallibly 
what that revelation was, but he could not go counter to it, 
and was to be judged by it. If the inspired apostles recog- 
nised not only their subjection to the word of God, but also 
the right of the people to judge whether their teachings were 
in accordance with the supreme standard, it is most evident 
that no church authority can make any thing contrary to 
Seripture obligatory on believers, and that the ultimate right 
to decide whether ecclesiastical decisions are in accordance 
with the word of God, rests with the people. In other words, 
Paul recognises, even in reference to himself, the right of pri- 
vate judgment. He allowed any man to pronounce him 
anathema, if he did not preach the gospel as it had been re- 
vealed and authenticated to the church. Quum eorum fidei 
dominari se negat, significat injustam hane esse et minime 
tolerandam potestatem, imo tyrannidem in ecclesia, Fides 
enim prorsus ab hominum jugo soluta, liberrimaque esse debet. 
Notandum autem, quis loquatur: nam siquis omnino sit mor- 
talium qui jus habeat tale dominium sibi vindicandi, Paulus 
certe dignus hac prrogativa fuit, fatetur autem sibi non 
competere. Itaque colligimus, fidem non aliam subjectionem 
agnoscere, quam verbi Dei: hominum imperio minime esse 
obnoxiam, CatLyin. 


> 
4 
: 
β 
" 


II. CORINTHIANS 2, 1. 29 


CHAPTER It. 


The first paragraph, vs. 1-4, relates to the change of his plan of going im- 
mediately to Corinth. In vs. 5-11 he refers to the case of discipline 
mentioned in his former letter. In vs. 12-14 he states why he did not 
remain in Troas. And in vs. 14-17 he pours out his heart in gratitude 
to God for the continued triumph of the gospel. 


The true reason why the apostle did not go immediately to 
Corinth, and his views in reference to the offender whose 
excommunication he had insisted upon in his former letter. 


THERE is no change of subject in this chapter. The apostle 
after defending himself from the charge of levity in conduct 
and inconsistency in doctrine, had said, in ν, 23 of the pre- 
ceding chapter, that he did not go to Corinth before giving 
the church time to comply with the injunctions contained in 
his former Jetter, because he did not wish to appear among 
them as ajudge. He here says, in amplification, that he had 
determined not again to visit Corinth under circumstances 
which could only give pain to the Corinthians and to himself. 
He knew that he could not give them sorrow without being 
himself grieved, and he was assured that if he was happy they 
would share in his joy, vs. 1-4. The sorrow occasioned by 
the incestuous person was not confined to the apostle, but 
shared by the church. He was satisfied with the course 
which the church had pursued in reference to that case, and 
was willing the offender should be restored to their fellowship 
if they were, vs. 5-11. His anxiety about them was so great 
that not finding Titus, from whom he expected to receive 
intelligence, he was unable to remain at Troas, but passed 
over into Macedonia to meet him on his way, vs. 12.13. The 
intelligence which he received from Titus being favourable, 
the apostle expresses in strong terms his gratitude to God 
who always caused him to triumph, vs. 15-17. 


1. But I determined this with myself, that I would 
not come again to you in heaviness, 


The connection is with what immediately precedes. ‘I 
deferred my visit in order to spare you, not that I assume to 
be a lord over your faith, but a helper of your joy. But the 
true reason for my not coming was that I did not wish to 


; 
| 


30 II. CORINTHIANS 9. 2. 


come with heaviness” The words ἔκρινα ἑμαυτῷ, rendered Ζ 
determined with myself, may mean simply I determine as to 
myself. I had made up my mind; or, ‘I determined jor my- 
self, 1. e. for my own sake. This perhaps is to be preferred. 
The apostle thus delicately intimates that it was not merely to 
spare them, but also himself, that he put off his visit. The 
word this refers to the purpose which the apostle had formed, 
and which is explained by the following infinitive, μὴ ἐλϑεῖν, 
not to come. Two explanations are given of the following 
clause. According to the one, the meaning is, ‘I determined 
that my second visit should not be with sorrow ;’ according 
to the other, ‘I determined not a second time to visit you in 
sorrow.’ In the one case the implication is that Paul had, at. 
this time, been only once in Corinth; in the other, the passage 
implies that he had already (i. e. after his first visit) been to 
Corinth under circumstances painful to himself and to the 
church. There are two reasons for preferring this latter view. 
The first is, that according to the position of the words, as 
given in all the older manuscripts, (μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
ἐλϑεῖν,) the πάλιν, again, belongs to the whole clause and not 
exclusively to ἐλϑεῖν. The sense, therefore, is that he deter- 
mined not a second time to come with sorrow, (he had done 
that once.) The other reason is, that there is evidence from 
other passages that Paul had been twice to Corinth before 
this letter was written. See 12, 14,21. 13,1. That there is 
no mention in the Acts of this intermediate journey, is no suf- 
ficient reason for denying it, as the passages referred to are so 
explicit. To make the second visit one by letter, as Calvin 
(venerat enim semel per epistolam) and others have done, is 
evidently unnatural, Having gone once to correct abuses and 
to exercise severity, he was anxious not to have a second pain- 
ful interview of the same kind, and therefore, instead of going 
to them, as he had intended, directly from Corinth, he waited 
to learn through Titus what had been the effect of his letter. 
With heaviness, ἐν λύπῃ, with sorrow, i. e. causing sorrow to 
you. This explanation is required by the following verse, 
otherwise the meaning would more naturally be in sorrow, 
i. 6. in a sorrowful state of mind, as the word λύπη everywhere 
else with Paul means a state of grief. 


2. For if I make you sorry, who is he that maketh 
me glad, but the same that is made sorry by me? 


11. CORINTHIANS 2, 3. 31 


This is the reason why he did not wish to come bringing 
sorrow with him; ‘ For if,’ says he, ‘I make you sorry, who is 
there to make me glad? How can I be happy, if you are 
afflicted? Unless my visit cause you joy, it can bring no joy 
to me.’ As inspiration leaves full play to all the characteristic 
peculiarities of its subject, in reading the writings of inspired 
men we learn not only the mind of the Spirit, but also the 

rsonal character of the writers, The urbanity of the apostle 
aul, his refinement and courtesy, are just as plainly revealed 
in his epistles as his intellectual power and moral courage. 
The passage before us is one of many illustrations of the truth 
of this remark, furnished by this epistle. Who is he that 
maketh me glad, but the same that is made sorry by mes The 


singular is used, not because a particular individual, much less 


because the incestuous person, is specially referred to, but be- 
cause the case is stated in the form of a general proposition, 
‘TI cannot expect joy from one to whom 1 bring sorrow, 
Such was the apostle’s love for the Corinthians that unless 
they were happy he could not be happy. This is the natural 
and commonly received interpretation of the passage. Chry- 
sostom, and many of the ancient commentators, and some also 
of the moderns, give a different view of its meaning. ‘Who > 
gives me joy, but he who allows himself (λυπούμενος as middle 
and not passive) to be grieved by me.” That is, no one causes 
me so much joy as he who is brought to repentance by me, 
But this is obviously inconsistent with the context. ,The 
verse, as thus explained, gives no reason why Paul did not 
wish to go to Corinth bringing sorrows On the contrary, the 
more of that kind of ἔκανα, brought with him, or was oe- 
casioned by his visit, the better. This interpretation would 
make the apostle say, ‘I will not come with sorrow, for noth- 
ing gives me so much pleastre as to cause (godly) sorrow,’ 
To avoid this incongruity Olshausen says the connection is to 
be thus understood: Paul determined that he would not come 
with sorrow, because he feared that few of the Corinthians 
would give him the happiness of seeing that they had been 
made sorry by his former reproofs. But this makes the pas- 
sage itself a reproof, an insinuation that they had not profited 
by his first letter. This is contrary to the whole spirit of the 
passage, which is overflowing with confidence and affection. 
o 


3. And I wrote this same ‘unto you, lest, when I 
9* 


32 11. CORINTHIANS 2, 8. 


came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I 
ought to rejoice; having confidence mm you all that my 
joy is (the joy) of you all. 


Having said that his motive for not coming at once to Cor- 
inth was to avoid giving them sorrow, he here adds, ‘ And I 
wrote what I did in my former letter that, when I came, I 
mic¢ht not have sorrow.’ Instead of going in person to cor- 
rect the evils which existed in the church of Corinth, he wrote 
to them that those evils might be corrected before he came, 
and thus his coming would be a source of joy to both parties. 
It is evident from the preceding context, and from vs. 4 and 
9, that ἔγραψα here refers not to this epistle, but to the former 
one. This same, τοῦτο αὐτό, that very thing, that is, the very 
thing which I did write respecting the incestuous person. 
The expression seems to have special reference to that case, | 
because that is evidently the case to which the following 
verses relate. It appears that the point about which the 
apostle was most anxious was, how the Corinthians would act 
in regard to his command, 1 Cor. 5, 13, to put away from 
among them “that wicked person.” He seems to have feared 
that his enemies might have had influence enough with the 
church, to prevent their executing his command. He there- 
fore waited in painful suspense to learn the issue. And when 
‘Titus, on his return from Corinth, informed him that they had 
not only promptly obeyed his directions, but that the offender 

himself and the whole church had been brought to deep and 
- genuine repentance, his heart was filled with gratitude to God, 
and with loye to the people who had manifested such a Chris- 
tian spirit. All this is plain from what is said in ch. 7. Eras- 
mus and several other commentators render τοῦτο αὐτό hac 
cadem de causa, for this very reason. The sense would then 
be, ‘I determined I would not come to you with sorrow, and 
for that very reason I wrote to you that I might not, 
This, although it suits the preceding context, is not so con- 
sistent with what follows as the common interpretation; for 
in the following verses the apostle states the reasons for his 
writing as he had done in his former letter. | 

Lest when I came I should have sorrow from them of 
whom I ought to rejoice. That is, ‘I wrote what I did that I 
might not have sorrow from-those, who should be to me a 
source of joy.” He wished all painful questions settled betore 
he came. JLlaving confidence in you all that my joy is the joy 


II. CORINTHIANS 2, 4. 88 


of you all. Paul in saying that he wished all causes of painful 
collision might be removed out of the way before he went to 
Corinth, did not isolate himself from the people, as though 
concerned only for his own peace of mind, but was satisfied 
that what made him happy would make them happy. My joy 
will be the joy of you all, This does not mean merely that it 
would give them pleasure to see him happy, but also that obe- 
dience on their part, and the consequent purity and prosperity 
of the church, were as necessary to their happiness as to his. 
Paul says he had this confidence in them ad, although it is 
abundantly evident that there were men eo them who 
were his bitter opponents. These latter he here leaves out of 
view, and speaks of the majority, probably the great body, of 
the church as though it were the whole. 


- Ὁ 


4. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart 
{ wrote unto you with many tears; not that ve should 
be grieved, but that ye may know the love which I 
have the more abundantly towards you. 


The connection is either with the immediately preceding 
clause, ‘I have eonfidence in you, for otherwise it would not 
have given me so much pain to write as 1 did;’ or, what is 
more natural because more direct, the reference is to the mo- 
tives which dictated his letter. ‘I was influenéed by the de- 

; sire of promoting your happiness, for to me if was a most 
y painful duty” Out of (é) indicates the source. His letter 
flowed from a broken heart. Affliction and anguish refer to 
his inward feelings, not to his outward circumstances, for both 
are qualified by the word Heart. It was out of an afflicted, an 
oppresied heart, that he wrote. With many tears, (διά, 
through many tears, The union of fidelity and love whic 
renders parental discipline peculiarly effective, gives also pe- 
culiar power to ecclesiastical censures. When the offender is 
made to feel that, while his sin is punished, he himself is loved ; 
and that the end aimed at is not his suffering but his good, 
he is the more likely to be brought to repentance. Every 
astor must see in the apostle’s love for the Corinthians, and 
im the extreme sorrow with which he exercised discipline in 
the case of offenders, an instructive example for his imitation. 
Not that ye should be grieved, my object in writing was not 
to cause you sorrow, but that ye may know the love that I 


34 11. CORINTHIANS 2, δ. ἢ 


have the more abundantly towards you. ‘The ends which the 
apostle desired:to accomplish by his former letter were numer- 
ous, and he therefore sometimes specifies one, and sometimes 
another. Here, he says, it was to manifest his love; in v. 9 
he says it was to test their obedience; in ch. 7 he says it was 
to bring them to repentance. These are not incompatible ends, 
and therefore there is no inconsistency between these several 
statements. Zhe love. which I have the more abundantly 
towards you. ‘This naturally means the special love which I 
have for you. His love for them was more abundant, or 
greater, than that which he had for any other church, This 
view is borne out by numerous other passages in these two 
epistles, which go to show that Paul’s love for the Corinthian 
church was, for some reason, peculiarly strong. As vs, 5-11 
have direct reference to the case of the incestuous person, it is _. 
the more probable that all that he says in the preceding verses — 
as to his reasons for not coming sooner to Corinth, and as to 
the sorrow and anxiety which he felt about the state of the 
church there, had special reference to that case. | 


5. But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved 
me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all. 


The connection between this paragraph, ys. 5-11, and 
what precedes is natural and obvious. Paul had been speak- 
ing of his motives for writing his former letter. It was not 
intended to give them sorrow. If sorrow had been occasioned, 
it had not come from him, This led him to speak more par- 
ticularly of the case which had occasioned so much distress, 
The proper interpretation of this particular verse is, however, 
a matter of great doubt. The translation is of necessity, in 
this case, an exposition, and therefore the grounds of doubt 
do not appear to the English reader, Our translators, after 
Luther, assume that ἀπὸ μέρους, in part, are to be connected 
with the preceding clause, and πάντας ὑμᾶς, you all, with ἐπι- 
Bapo, overcharge. 'Thus construed the sense can only be, 
‘If any one has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but in 
part, that is, [am not the only person aggrieved. I say this, 
lest I should bear hard upon you all. It would be a severe 
reflection on you to say that you did not feel any sorrow for 
the offence in question.” According to this view, the design 
of the passage is to guard against the impression that he 


II. CORINTHIANS 2, 6. 35 


meant to charge them with indifference. But to this it is ob- 
jected that to express this sense εἰ μή, and not ἀλλά, would be 
required. “He hath not grieved me except in part.’ And 
secondly, that the idea thus expressed is not suited to the 
context. The main idea evidently is, ‘He hath not grieved 
me but you.’ The subordinate words and clauses therefore 
must be accommodated to that idea. Hence ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ μέρους 
must be connected with what follows, and πάντας ὑμᾶς with 
λελύπηκεν. Then the sense will be, ‘He hath not grieved me, 
but in part, or, to a certain extent, (lest I should bear too 
hard on him,) you all’ The design of the passage, accordin 
to this view, is to soften the charge against the penitent of- 
fender of having been the cause of sorrow. This the apostle 
does, first, by saying, “he did not grieve me,” i. e. it was no 
personal offence against me that he committed ; and second, 
that all the Corinthians were not afflicted, it was not a uni- 
versal sorrow that he caused. This substantially is the inter- 
pretation given by Calvin after Chrysostom, and is the one 
adopted by the great majority of modern commentators. It 
has the advantage of being not only suited to the meaning of 
the words, but to the whole tone of the following context, 
which is eminently mild and conciliatory. The apostle’s heart 
was overflowing with the tenderest feelings towards his Co- 
rinthian brethren, and he was evidently solicitous to heal the 
salutary wounds inflicted by his former letter. There is still 
another view of the passage which should be mentioned. It 
may be pointed so as to read thus: ‘ He hath not grieved me, 
but in part (that I may not overcharge all) you. This, how- 
ever, unnaturally separates the words πάντας ὑμᾶς, you all. 


6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, 
which (was inflicted) of many. 


I do not wish to be severe towards him, for the punish- 
ment which he has received is sufficient. The word ἡ ἐπιτιμία, 
rendered punishment, occurs only in Wisdom 3,10 in this 
sense, and therefore many assume that it here does not mean 

unishment, but reproof. The word rendered sufficient, ἱκανόν, 
is used substantively. ‘This punishment is a sufficiency, or a 
satisfaction.” Comp. Matt. 6, 34 for a similar construction. 
Paul says the punishment or reproof was administered ὑπὸ τῶν 
πλειόνων, by the majority, intimating that all did not concur in 


36 11. CORINTHIANS 9, 6. 


it. This, however, is not a necessary inference, because ot 
πλειόνες May mean the many, the whole body considered as 
many, because composed of many members. There are three 
views taken of this verse in connection with what follows. In 
his former letter the apostle had not only commanded the 
church to excommunicate the person here referred to, but de- 
clared his own determination to deliver him to Satan for the 
destruction of the flesh. 1 Cor. 5,5. Grotius supposes that 
in consequence of that judgment he was seized with some 
bodily malady, for delivery from which Paul, in this connec- 
tion, declares his willingness that the Corinthians should pray. 
Of this, however, the passage gives no intimation. A second 
view is that the sentence of excommunication had not been 
carried into effect, but as the reproof administered by many 
had had the effect of leading the offender to repentance, the 
apostle here intimates his satisfaction with what the church 
had done, although his injunctions had not been fully complied 
with. This is the view of Calvin, Beza, and of many others. In 
favour of this explanation it is urged that the expression “ this 
punishment ” naturally refers to that punishment or reproof 
which the Corinthians had administered as distinguished from 
that which he had enjoined; and his saying “this punish- 
ment,” of which he had heard, was enough, implies that he 
did not wish them to proceed any further, but rather that 
they should console the penitent by the assurance of their 
love. On the other hand, however, v. 9 (as well as ch. 7) 
clearly intimates that the church had rendered a prompt obe- 
dience to the apostle’s directions. The great majority of 
commentators, therefore, understand the passage to mean that 
Paul did not wish the excommunication to be continued any 
longer. As it had produced its desired effect, he was willing 
that the offender should be restored to the communion of the 
church, The whole passage indicates that Paul was more 
lenient than the church, for he exhorts his readers not to be 
too severe in their treatment of their offending brother. A 
passage, says Calvin, himself a severe disciplinarian, well to be 
observed, as it teaches with what equity and clemency the dis- 
cipline of the church is to be attempered; gua wquitate et 
clementia temperanda sit disciplina ecclesie. Paul, he adds, 
was satisfied with the repentance of the offender ; whereas the 
ancient bishops gave forth their canons requiring a penance 
of three, or seven years, or even for a life-time, without regard 
to the contrition of the unhappy victims of their severity. 


Oe EE EE EE ὙΎΨασσσ .“ Ν 


Il. CORINTHIANS 2, 7.8. 37 


7. So that contrariwise ye (ought) rather to forgive 
(him) and comfort (him), lest perhaps such a one should 
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 


The consequence of what is expressed in y. 8 is indicated 
by the words so that. ‘The punishment being sufficient, the 
consequence is that, instead of its being increased or continued, 
you should forgive and comfort the offender.” As the apostle 
seems to indicate what ought to be done, most commentators 
supply before the infinitives χαρίσασϑαι καὶ παρακαλέσαι the 
word δεῖ or δεῖν, ‘it is necessary to forgive and comfort” The 
infinitive itself, however, often expresses, after verbs of saying, 
and the like, not what is, but what should be, ὁ, g. λέγοντες 
περιτέμνεσϑαι, saying you ought to be circumcised. Acts 15, 
24, 21,4.21. Winer, p. 371, says that neither of these 
modes of explanation is necessary, as the infinitives may be 
connected immediately with ἱκανόν, ‘The reproof is suflicient 
—in order to your pardoning and comforting him” The deli- 
cacy of the apostle towards this offender is indicated by his 
abstaining either from naming him, or designating him as he 
had before done, 1 Cor. 5, 13, as that wicked person. He re- 
fers to him simply as auch an one, without any appellation 
which could wound his feelings. The apostle combined, there- 
fore, the strictest fidelity with the greatest tenderness. As 
long as the offender was impenitent and persisted in his of- 
fence, Paul insisted upon the severest punishment. As soon 
as he acknowledged and forsook his sin, he became his earnest 
advocate. Lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch 
sorrow, that is, lest he should be driven to despair and thus 
destroyed, Undue severity is as much to be avoided as undue 
leniency. The character which Paul here exhibits reflects the 
image of our heavenly Father.. His word is filled with de- 
nunciations against impenitent sinners, and at the same time 
with assurances of unbounded pity and tenderness towards 
the penitent. He never breaks the bruised reed or quenches 
the smoking flax. 


8. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm 
(your) love towards him. | 
The connection is either with v. 6, ‘ His punishment is swf- 


ficient—wherefore confirm your love towards him ;’ or with 
what immediately precedes. ‘There is danger of his being 


38 II. CORINTHIANS 2, 9. 


swallowed up with overmuch sorrow unless you forgive him, 
wherefore confirm your love to him” The latter method is 
to be preferred, though the sense is substantially the same. 
I beseech you, παρακαλῶ, the same word which in the preced- 
ing verse is used in the sense of consoling. Paul not unfre- 
quently uses the same word in the immediate connection in 
different senses. 1 Cor. 3,17. 11,23. That ye would con- 
jirm, literally, to confirm, κυρῶσαι, The word properly means 
to ratify with authority by some public or formal act. Gal. 
3,15. And this sense is generally adopted here. The apostle 
is understood to call upon them by a formal act to reinstate 
the offender in the communion of the church, to assure him 
of their love, so that he might not have to infer it merely 
from their treatment of him. The word, however, may mean, 
nothing more than is expressed in our version. ‘I exhort you 
to make your love towards him a matter of certainty” But 
as the implication is that they had already begun to manifest 
their brotherly affection for him, the probability is that the 
apostle wished them to give their love a formal ratification. 


9. For to this end also did I write, that I might 
know the proof of you, whether-ye be obedient in all 
things. 


Verses 9 and 10 are sometimes regarded as a parenthesis, 
so as to connect the 11th verse with the 8th. ‘Confirm your 
love towards him, lest Satan get an advantage over us” But 
a parenthesis is never to be assumed where the grammatical 
construction continues unbroken, and the logical connection is 
uninterrupted, The 11th verse is naturally connected with 
the 10th, and the 9th with the 8th. ‘Contirm your love to 
him, for the object of my writing to you to exclude him from 
your fellowship, has been accomplished. Zo this end means 
the end specitied in the latter part of the verse. JZ wrote, 
ἔγραψα, a form of the verb which is often in the epistolary style 
used of the letter in the process of being written. Rom. 15, 
15. 1 Cor. 9,15. 1 Pet. 5,12, &e. The whole context, how- 
ever, shows that Paul refers to his former letter. See vs. 3. 4. 
He did not write this letter to test their obedience, though 
that was one of the objects of his former epistle. Paul says, 
‘I also wrote.” This also may indicate that it was the object 
of his former letter as well as of the exhortation which he had 
just given them, to test their obedience. But such was not 


‘ 
: 


II. CORINTHIANS 2, 10. 39 


the object of that exhortation. It is better therefore to un- 
derstand the (xa/) also, as simply intended to give prominence 
to the words J wrote, as something additional to other things 
which he had done with the same general object. ‘To this 
end I also wrote, as well as did many other things, &c. The 
end (although not the only one), which the apostle had in view 
in enjoining on the church the excommunication of the person 
here referred to, was, as he says, that I might know the proof 
of you. The word used is δοκιμή, which means trial, 8, 2, 
“trial of affliction ;” or, proof, test, 13, 3, “ As ye seek a proof 
of Christ speaking in me;” or, the result of trial, what is ap- 
lad ee integrity that has been tested. Phil, 2, 22, “ Ye know 

is tried integrity.” The last meaning is the best suited to 
this place. ‘That I might know your integrity, i. e. your true 
Christian temper” This is explained by saying he wished to 
see whether they would be obedient in all things, εἰς πάντα, 
in reference to all things. These latter words stand first, 
‘Whether as to all things ye are obedient,’ which is more em- 
phatic. Obedience to legitimate authority is one of the fruits 
and evidences of Christian sincerity. A rebellious, self-willed, 
disobedient spirit is a strong indication of an unsanctified 
heart. As the Corinthians had proved themselves obedient 
to the apostle’s directions, and as the offender was truly peni- 
tent, the object of his letter, both as it related to them and to 
him, had been attained, and therefore there was no reason for 
the continuanse of the punishment. 


10. To whom ye forgive any thing, I (forgive) also : 
for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave (it),* for 
your sakes (forgave I it) in the person of Christ. 


The apostle having exhorted the Corinthians to forgive 
their repentant brother, says he was ready to join in that for- 
giveness, Zo whom ye forgive any thing, I also. Although 
this is stated generally, as though he meant to say that he 
would forgive any one whom they were ready to forgive, yet 
it is obvious from the context that he intended vo be under- 


* The received text here reads καὶ yap ἐγὼ εἴ τι κεχάρισμαι, ᾧ κεχάρισμαι, 
for also Lif I have forgiven any thing, to whom I forgave. Griesbach, Lach- 
mann, Tischendorf, Riickert, Meyer, and others, after the majority of ancient 
MSS. read, καὶ yap ἐγὼ ὅ κεχάρισμαι, εἴ τι xexdpisuat, for also 1 what I have 
forgiven, if I have forgiven any thing. 


40 II. CORINTHIANS 2, 10. 


stood as referring to that particular case. He was satisfied 
with their course, and also with the evidence of the repentance 
of the offender, and therefore he was ready to sanction his 
restoration to their communion. His reason for this is stated 
in what follows, he did it for their sake. His forgiving, how- 
ever, was suspended upon theirs. He would not interfere to 
restore the person in question unless they were satisfied to re- 
ceive him. He therefore says, Jf I have forgiven any thing, 
that is, if the forgiveness expressed in the foregoing clause is 
to take effect and to be considered as already done, I have 
done it for your sake. He was influenced by no personal con- 
sideration cither in the censure originally pronounced, or in 
his present course, but solely by a desire to promote their 
best interests. Jn the person of Christ, or, in the presence of 
Christ. This latter interpretation is the more consistent with 
usage, and is generally adopted. The meaning is that he act- 
ed in this matter as in the presence of Christ, i. 6. as though 
Christ were looking on. The other explanation, which is pre- 
ferred by Luther and many others, is consistent with the 
meaning of the words, and gives a good sense. He acted in 
the person of Christ, i. e. as his representative and by his au- 
thority. This idea, however, is commonly expressed by the 
phrase in the name of Christ. 1 Cor. 5,4. Calvin prefers 
the former view, and adds, Christ is to be placed before us, or 
we “are to act as in his presence, for nothing is better adapt- 
ed to incline us to mercy.” No man can be severe in his 
judgment who feels that the mild eyes of Christ are fixed 
upon him, 

The word χαρίζομαι, rendered to forgive in this verse, is a 
deponent verb, but is, in several of its forms, used in a passive 
sense. It is so taken here by Riickert and Meyer, who give 
an entirely different explanation of the passage. They adopt 
the reading of Griesbach, given in the margin, and render it 
thus: ‘I forgive—for what I have been forgiven, if I have 
been forgiven anything, it is for your sake.” That is, if God 
has really pardoned my great sin in persecuting Christ, it was 
for your sake. Comp. 1 Tim. 1,16. But this interpretation 
is inconsistent with the common use of the word, with the 
whole context, and with Paul’s manner of speaking. His hu- 
mility manifested itself in deep remorse and repentance for his 
past conduct, but not in doubting whether he had been for- 
given. Besides, this interpretation would require a very un- 
uatural explanation of the following clause. ‘If I have been 


| 


Il. CORINTHIANS 2, 11-13. 41 


forgiven for your sake in the presence of Christ, that is, 
Christ is the witness of my being forgiven, This is contrary 
to all scriptural representations. God is said to forgive for 
Christ’s sake; and Christ is said to forgive, but he is never 
represented as the mere witness or spectator of our for- 
giveness, 


11. Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for 
we are not ignorant of his devices. 


This verse, as above remarked, is by some made to depend 
on v. 8, the vs. 9 and 10 being parenthetical. ‘Confirm your 
love towards him—lest Satan should get an advantage of us.’ 
Others make it depend on the preceding words, ‘We should 
act (or, 1 was gardoned) in the presence of Christ, lest, &e. 
The most natural connection is with the first clause of v. 10, 
which contains the main idea of the context. ‘I will join you 
in pardoning the offender lest Satan get an advantage of us,’ 
i, ec, make a gain of us. The expression is μὴ πλεονεκτηϑῶμεν 
ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ, lest we should be made gain of, or defrauded, by 
Satan. It was a gain to Satan if either an individual soul 
could be driven to despair, or the peace of the church could 
be disturbed. Both of these evils were to be apprehended if 
discipline were carried too far. This dread of Satan was not 
chimerical or unreasonable, for he really does seek to turn 
every thing to the disadvantage of Christ and his kingdom. 
We are not ignorant, says the apostle, of his devices. This 
and similar passages of the Word of God teach that Satan is 
a personal being; that he exerts great influence over the 
minds of men; that although finite, and, therefore, not ubiqui- 
tous, he is nevertheless represented as operating on the minds 
of men generally, and not merely on those in any one place. 
His powers of intelligence and agency therefore must be great 
beyond our conceptions. No individual and no community 
can ever be sure that he is not plotting their destruction. 
Paul might have said to the Romans or the Ephesians, as he 
did to the Corinthians, that they must take heed lest Satan 
make a gain of them, and in some way secure them as his own, 


12. 13. Furthermore, when I came to Troas to 
(preach) Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened to me 


of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit because I found 


42 II, CORINTHIANS 9, 12. 13. 


not Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I 
went from thence into Macedonia. 


Furthermore, when I came ; literally, But having come. 
The particle δέ (Sut) serves to resume the connection broken 
by the digression, vs. 5-11. Inv. 4 he said he had written 
his former letter in great anguish and distress of heart, to 
manifest his love for them. And as a still further proof of 
the deep interest which he took in their welfare, he refers to 
the incident mentioned in these verses. In execution of his 
plan of going from Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth, 1 
Cor, 16,5, Paul came to T’roas, literally, to the Troad (εἰς τὴν 
Τρωάδα), a name given to the whole district around the site of 
ancient Troy. The city itself was on the coast of Mysia oppo- 


site to the island of Tenedos. It had been made a Roman > 


colony by Augustus, and was a place of considerable impor- 
tance, in constant commercial intercourse with the cities of 
Macedonia and Greece. Paul did not intend to make a rapid 
journey to Corinth, but a regular missionary tour; he there- 
fore says he came to Troas to preach Chrisi’s gospel, i. 6. the 
gospel of which Christ is the author. It is also called the 
gospel of God, and Paul speaks of it as his gospel, i. e. the 
gospel which. he preached. When spoken of as the gospel 
of the kingdom of God, Matt. 4, 23, the gospel of salvation, 
ph, 1, 13, of peace, Eph. 6, 15, the genitive expresses either 
the subject of which the gospel treats or the effects which it 
produces. And a door was opened to me, i. 6. a way of ac- 
cess, an opening to labour with effect. Of the Lord, accord- 
ing to this interpretation the words, ἐν κυρίῳ, are to be connect- 
ed with the immediately preceding participle, ‘‘ door opened 
by the Lord.” See 1 Cor. 15,58. Gal. 5,10. Eph. 2,21. It 
is, however, more in accordance with Paul’s style, who so 
frequently uses these words in such expressions as ‘ work in 
the Lord,’ ‘temple in the Lord,’ ‘ fellow-labourer in the Lord,’ 
to refer them to the whole clause. ‘There was an open door 
in the Lord.” The kind of door is thus indicated, or the 
sphere of labour pointed out. It was an opportunity for la- 
bouring successfully in the Lord’s service. ‘Though the pros- 
pects were so favourable, Paul says, J had no rest in my 
spirit ; τῷ πνεύματι μοῦ, for my spirit. The word spirit 15 
here used because it is the highest term to designate the soul, 
Rom, 8, 16, and the anxiety or distress which the apostle ex- 
perienced concerned the highest feelings of his nature. Be- 


II. CORINTHIANS 2, 14. 43 


cause I found not Titus my brother. Ue calls Titus his broth- 
er, both because of his relation to him as a fellow-Christian, 
and because he was a joint labourer with him in the gospel. 
He expected to meet Titus at Troas, and to learn from him the 
state of things in Corinth, and especially the effect produced 
by his former letter. It seems that he regarded this as a 
turning point in the history of that church. If they submitted 
to his authority and corrected the abuses which he had point- 
ed out, and especially if they excommunicated the member 
guilty of the unheard-of offence so often referred to in this 
chapter, then he had hopes of their stability in faith and prog- 
ress in holiness. But if they refused to regard his injunctions, 
and persisted in the course on which they had entered, then he 
foresaw their speedy destruction. So much was at stake that 
he could not endure the state of suspense which he was in; 
and therefore, taking leave of them, that is, of the brethren in 
Troas, he passed over into Macedonia. On his first visit to this 
city, Paul was prevented from remaining by a vision, from which 
he gathered that the Lord called him to preach the gospel in 
Macedonia. Acts 16,8. And on his return from his present 
journey, it is said, he sailed from Philippi and came in five da 
to Troas, and abode there seven days. Acts 20,6. From the 
circumstances connected with this last visit it is evident that 
there was an established church at that time in Troas. The 
word ἀποτάσσομαι, to take leave of, means to separate oneself 
Jrom, to bid farewell to. Luke 16, 61. Acts 18, 18.21. 7 
went from thence into Macedonia ; εξῆλϑον, I went forth. 
He crossed over the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean 
sea to one of the ports of Macedonia; the same voyage which 
he made on his return, which then required five days. As 
Titus was to return from Corinth through Macedonia to Troas, 
Paul thus went to meet him on his journey. 


14, Now thanks (be) unto God, which always caus- 
eth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the 
savour of his knowledge by us in every place. 


Agreeably to the impulsive character of this epistle, in- 
stead of stating what was the intelligence which he received 
from Titus, the apostle breaks out into a thanksgiving to God, 
which assumes a form which might be taken for self-commen- 
dation, which he, however, disclaims, and humbly acknowl- 
edges that all his qualifications for his work, and all his success 


44 II. CORINTHIANS 2, 14. 


in it, are to be attributed to God. This leads him to speak 
of the ministry of the gospel, which he contrasts with that of 
the law, and himself with Moses, so that it is not until the 
seventh chapter that he pauses, as it were, to take breath, and 
resumes the narrative here broken off. The thing for which 
the apostle gives thanks is his suecess; which includes both 
his triumph over obstacles and enemies, and his efficiency in 
spreading abroad the knowledge of the truth. The word 
ϑριαμβεύειν, rendered here to cause to triumph, means to tri- 
umph over, to lead in triumph. This is its uniform sense in 
the classics, and it is so used by Paul in Col. 2,5. Meyer 
and others so render the word here. ‘Thanks be to God who 
triumphs over us,’ i. e. who disappoints our fears and puts our. 
anxieties to shame, But this is evidently incongruous. Paul 
does not represent himself as humbled and conquered, but just 
the reverse. Calvin and others retain the literal meaning of 
the word, and say the sense is, ‘Thanks be to God who leads 
us in triumph, not as captives, but as sharers of his victory. 
This gives a suitable meaning, but is not so consistent with 
the use of the word, which means to triumph over, not, to 
make one a sharer in our triumph. The great majority of 
commentators therefore modify the sense of the word as is 
done by our translators. This they justify by referring to the 
fact that many verbs which in ordinary Greek are neuter, in 
the Hellenistic dialect are used in a causative sense ( Winer, 
Ῥ. 304), as μαϑητεύειν, to be a disciple, in Matt. 28, 19 and else- 
where, means to make disciples ; βασιλεύειν, to reign, in 1 Sam, 
8, 22, and often in the Septuagint, means to cause to reign ; 
and thus ϑριαμβεύειν, to triumph, may in obedience to the con- 
text be fairly rendered, to cause to triumph. In Christ, in virtue 
of union with Christ, or, as united to him. These words de- 
termine the nature of the triumph of which the apostle speaks. 
It was the triumph of a Christian minister in the service of 
Christ. 

And maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge, i. e. 
diffuses or spreads abroad his knowledge, which is compared 
to the savour of a sacrifice (Gen. 8, 21. Eph. 5,2. Phil. 4, 18), 
or to incense. His knowledge; the pronoun /is is commonly 
referred to God, but as this clause is explanatory of the for- 
mer, or an amplification of the idea therein expressed, it is 
perhaps better to refer it to Christ. ‘ He causes us to triumph 
in Christ, and to spread abroad the savour of his knowledge,’ 
i, 6, the knowledge of Christ. That Christ shou!d be known 


II. CORINTHIANS 2, 15. 45 


was the great end of Paul’s mission, and is of all things the 
most acceptable to God. Knowledge here, as so often else- 
where in Scripture, means not merely intellectual cognition, 
but spiritual apprehension and recognition. That men should 
know the Lord Jesus Christ in the sense of recognizing, loving 
and worshipping him as God manifest in the flesh, is the con- 
summation of redemption; the sum of all blessedness and ex- 
cellence. Jn every place. Wherever Paul went, there the 
knowledge of Christ was spread abroad. Comp. Rom, 15, 19. 
Can this be said of us? 


15. For wé are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, 
in them that are saved, and in them that perish. 


We as ministers, and our work of preaching Christ, are ac- 
ceptable to God, whatever may be the result of our labours, 
This idea is connected with the preceding as an amplification 
and confirmation. ‘God by us diffuses the knowledge of 
Christ everywhere as a savour; for (ὅτι, because) it is well 
a to God whatever be the effect which it produces.’ 

here is, as is so common in Paul’s epistles, a slight change in 
the figure. In v. 14 the knowledge of Christ is declared to 
be a savour as of incense, here the apostle is the sweet savour. 
But it is the apostle not as a man, not the purity or devotion 
of his life; but the apostle as a preacher of the gospel, and 
therefore the gospel which he preached; so that the thought 
remains the same. [πὶ both verses the diffusion of the knowl- 
edge of Christ is said to be well pleasing to God, Savour of 
Christ, does not mean a sayour of which Christ is the author. 
The idea is not that Christ rendered Paul or his life accepta- 
ble to God. That indeed is true, but it is not what is intend- 
ed. When we speak of the perfume of the rose, or of the vio- 
let, we mean that perfume which the rose or the violet emits 
and which is characteristic of it. When Paul says, “ We are 
a sweet smelling savour of Christ,” he means we are the means 
of diffusing the knowledge of Christ. When a man’s garments 
are perfumed with myrrh or frankincense, he fills with the fra- 
grees every place he enters. So Paul, wherever he went, 

iffused abroad the fragrance of the name of Christ, and that 
was acceptable to God. Jn them, i. 6. among them, that are 
saved ; and in (among) them that perish. ‘This does not mean 
among them predestined to be saved, and those predestined 
to perish. The idea of predestination is not included. The 


46 II. CORINTHIANS 2, 16. 


two classes are designated ab eventu. The gospel and those— 
who preach it are well pleasing to God, whether men receive. 
it and are saved, or reject it and are lost. The light is inesti- 
mably precious, whether the eye rejoices in it, or through dis- 
ease is destroyed by it. Comp. 1 Cor. 1,18. 2 Thess. 2,10. — 


16. To the one (we are) the savour of death unto 
death; to the other the savour of life unto life. And 
who is sufficient for these things ἢ 


The words we are are not in the text, but are necessarily 
implied. The apostle and all faithful ministers are to God an 
εὐωδία, &@ sweet savour, to men an ὀσμή, a savour, salutary or 
destructive according to circumstances. We are, i. 6. we as~ 
preachers. The idea is the same whether we say that preach- 
ers of the gospel, or the gospel itself, or Christ, are the cause 
of life to some, and of death to others. As Christ is to some 
a tried corner stone, elect and precious, the rock of their sal- 
vation, to others he is a stone of offence. 1 Pet. 2,7.8. So 
the gospel and its ministers are the cause of life to some, and 
of death to others, and to all they are either the one or the 
other, The word of God is quick and powerful either to save 
or to destroy. It cannot be neutral. If it does not save, it 
destroys. ‘This is the condemnation, that light is come into 
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,” John 
3,19. “If I had not come and spoken unto them they had 
not had sin,” John 15, 22. Ifa man rejects the gospel, it had 
been far better for him never to have heard it. It will be 
more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judg- 
ment than for him. This, which is the doctrine of the Bible, 
is plainly the doctrine of this passage. The gospel and those 
who preach it, are either a savour of life or a savour of death. 
If not the one, they must be the other. In the phrase “a 
savour of death unto death,” of death expresses the quality, 
unto death, the etfect. It is a deadly savour, and it produces 
death. And so of the corresponding clause, “a savour of life 
unto life,” is a salutary savour producing life. The Rabbins 
often use a similar expression in reference to the Law, which 
they say is either‘an odour of life or of death. 

On the authority of two of the older MSS. (A and C), and 
several of the more modern ones, Lachmann, Tischendorf and 
Meyer read ἐκ Javarov and ἐκ ζωῆς instead of the simple geni- 


II. CORINTHIANS 2, 17. 47 


tive. It is then not a savour of death or of life, but a savour 
arising from death, and a savour arising from life. To the 
one class Christ is dead and yields only a savour of death; to 
the other, he is alive, and yields a savour of life. According 
to either reading the main idea is the same. Christ and his 
gospel, and therefore his ministers, are to believers the source 
of life, and to unbelievers the source of death. See Matt. 21, 
44. Luke 2,34. John 9,39. The common text has more ex- 
ternal authority, and certainly gives a simpler sense, and is 
therefore preferred by the majority of editors. ; 

And who is sufficient for these things ? Kai (and) before 
a question often indicates a consequence of what precedes. 
It is frequently in our version in such cases rendered then. 
“ Who then can be saved?” Mark 10, 26. ‘ How is he then 
David’s son?” Luke 20, 44. So here, Who then is sufficient 
for these things? If the work is so great, if eternal life or 
eternal death must follow the preaching of the gospel, who 
then is sufficient (ἱκανός) for so responsible a calling? The 
most natural answer to this question would seem to be, ‘No 
one in himself The following verse, however, which begins 
with (γάρ) for, and is designed to confirm the implied answer, 
requires that answer to be, “Iam,” ‘I am suflicient for this 
work, for I do not handle the word of God deceitfully. 
“ My sufficiency,” however, the apostle immediately adds, 3, 
5, “is of God.” Of himself he was not fit or able to do any 
thing. There is, as Calvin remarks, an implied antithesis. 
‘The object of preaching is the diffusion of the knowledge of 
Christ ; the effect of that diffusion is life to some and death to 
others. Who then is competent to this work? Not your 
false teachers who corrupt the word of God, but I and others 
who preach the pure gospel from pure motives” This view is 
sustained by what follows, for the apostle immediately pro- 
ceeds to vindicate his claim to this sufliciency or fitness, which 
he denies to the false teachers. 


17. For we are not as many, which corrupt the 
word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, as in 
the sight of God, speak we in Christ. 


The connection indicated by jor is obvious, ‘We are 
competent to this work, for we are not like the false teachers, 
but are sincere’? Weare not as many, oi πολλοί, the many. 

3 


el ee ee ΝΑ 


ee ee ae 


er a oe Te | ee ἢ 
". 


48 Il. CORINTHIANS 2, 17. 


This some understand to mean the mass or majority of those 
who preach the gospel. The apostle would thus be made to 
condemn, as corrupters of the faith, the great body of the min- 
isters of the apostolic church. This, however, is unnecessary. — 
The many, means the definite many known to the Corinthians 
as false teachers, to whom in the course of this epistle the 
apostle so often refers. Which corrupt the word of God. 
The word used is καπηλεύω, to be a huckster, and then to act 
as one. Paul says, We do not act as hucksters in reference 
to the word of God, The word is frequently used in the 
Greek writers in a figurative sense, to express the ideas of adul- 
terating, and of making merchandise of any thing for the sake of 
gain. Both ideas may be united, for both are included in the 
disclaimer of the apostle. He neither adulterated the word 
of God, by mixing it with Judaism or false philosophy t. 6, 
with his own speculations), nor did he use it for any selfish or 
mercenary purpose. But as of sincerity. The (ds) as, is not 
redundant. The meaning is, ‘We speuk as those who are 
sincere,’ i, e,.those whose characteristic is εἱλικρίνεια, transpar- 
ent purity, or integrity; who cau bear being looked through 
and through; all whose motives will sustain inspection. As 
of God, not merely sent of God, bet godly, influenced by 

od, and belonging to..God, and therefore like him. Our 
Lord said to the Jews, “He which is of God, heareth God’s 
words; ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of 
God,” Sale 8,47. As in the sight of God, i, 6. as in his 
presence and conscious of his inspection. We speak in Christ ; 
not of Christ, nor, according to Christ, but in communijon with 
him, as a member of his body and actuated by his Spirit, We 
have here then Paul’s description of 4 faithful minister, of one 
who is (ἱκανός) sufficient, or qualified for the fearfal responsi. 
bility of being a savour of life or of death, He does not eur. 
rupt the word of God by any foreign admixtures, nor use it as 
a means of his own advancement by dispensing if so as to Biedie 
men; but he is governed by purée motives, is of God, and 
speaks as in the presence of God, and as a true Christian 


II. CORINTHIANS 3, 1. 49 


CHAPTER 1Π. 


The apostle shows that he does not need to commend himself or to be com- 
mended by the Corinthians; that God had qualified him for the work of 
a minister of the new, and not of the old covenant, vs. 1-11. He ex- 
ercised his ministry in accordance with the peculiar character of the new 
dispensation, vs. 12-18. 


Proof of the Apostles fp Sor his work, and its nature. 
s. 1-11. 


Aurnoven the concluding paragraph of the preceding chap- 
ter contained a strong assertion of the integrity and fidelity 
of the apostle, he says, it was not written for the purpose of 
self-commendation. He needed no commendation from any 
source, vy. 1. The Corinthians themselves were his commen- 
dation. Their conversion was an epistle of Christ authenti- 
cating his mission and his fidelity, which all men could read, 
vs. 2. 8, His fitness or sufficiency for his work was due in no 
measure to himself, but to God, who had endowed him with 
the qualifications of a minister of the new covenant, vs. 4-6. 
This covenant and its ministry are far superior to the old 
covenant and the ministry of Senaais because the one was a 
ministry of death, the other of life; the one was of condemna- 
tion, the other of righteousness; the glory of the one was 
transient, the glory of the other is abiding, vs. 7-11. 


1, Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or 
need we, as some (others), epistles of commendation to 
you, or (letters) of commendation from you ? 


Many of the peculiarities of this epistle are due to the fact 
that at the time of writing it the apostle’s mind was filled 
with conflicting feelings. On the one hand, he was filled with 
gratitude to God and love to the Corinthians on account of 
their repentance and ready obedience; and on the other, with 
feelings of indignation at the perverse and wicked course 
adopted by the false teachers in Corinth. Hence even in the 
expression of the former class of feelings, he is interrupted or 
turned aside by the thought that his opponents were on the 
watch to turn every thing to his disadvantage. Thus although 
there was nothing of a spirit of self-commendation in his thank- 


50 11. CORINTHIANS 8, 2. 


ing God for causing him to triumph, or in the assertion of his 
sincerity, in 1, 15-17, yet he knew that his enemies would put 
that construction on what he had said. He seems to hear 
them say, ‘He is commending himself again.’ It is plain from 
the use of the word again in this connection, that the charge 
of praising himself had before been made against the apostle, 
whether founded on his former epistle or what he said on 
other occasions, is uncertain and unimportant. 

The authorities are divided as to whether % μὴ or εἰ py is 
the true reading in the following clause. If the former, the 
sense is, “Or do we need,” &c.; if the latter, “Unless we 
need,” &c. The latter gives an irenical turn to the passage. 
The apostle sets it forth as certain that his apostolic mission 
and authority were so authenticated, that he did not need, as 
certain people did, letters of commendation either to them or 
from them, These false teachers had no doubt gained access 
to Corinth on the strength of certain letters of recommenda- 
tion. They were so little known and had so little character, 
that when they went elsewhere, they would need to be com- 
mended by the Corinthians, With Paul the case was dif 
ferent. 


2. Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known 
and read of all men. 


Ye are our epistle, de., or, The epistle which we have ye 
are. You as Christians, your conversion is, as it were, a letter 
from Christ himself authenticating our mission and fidelity. 
Written in ovr hearts. 'The plural form, our hearts, may be 
explained either on the assumption that the apostle is speak- 
ing of Timothy as well as of himself; or on the ground that 
he says hearts instead of heart for the same reason that he 
says We instead of J; or that the word is used figuratively 
for the affections. It is not Paul’s manner to make his asso- 
ciates the joint authors of his letters, and in no one of his 
epistles does he speak more out of the fulness of his personal 
feelings than he does in this. It was not Timothy who was 
accused of self-commendation, who needed no letters of com- 
mendation, and it was not of Timothy’s mission that the con- 
version of the Corinthians was the authentication, and there- 
fore it was not in Timothy’s heart that the epistle referred to 
was written. Paul is speaking of himself, thing is said to 
be written in the heart when it is a matter of consciousness ; 


II. CORINTHIANS 3, 3. ᾿ς 51 


when it is a matter of subjective, as distinguished from ob- 
jective knowledge. Thus the law of God is said to be written 
on the heart when the knowledge of it is inward and not 
merely outward, Jer, 31,33. Heb. 8,10. Rom. 2,15. Any 
thing of which a man is certain, or of which he has a convic- 
tion founded upon his inward experience, may be said to be 
written on his heart. That the Corinthians were his epistle 
was to the apostle a matter of consciousness. It was a letter 
written on his heart which he could neither misunderstand 
nor be ignorant of. Comp. Rom. 10, 8, Any thing also that 
is very dear to us is said to be written on the heart, or to be 
in the heart. So Paul says to the Corinthians, * Ye are in our 
hearts,” 7,3. The apostle therefore may be understood to 
mean either that he was perfectly certain that the conversion 
of the Corinthians was for him a letter of commendation; or 
that it was most dear to him. A letter cherished in his heart. 
The context is in favour of making the former idea the promi- 
nent one. This letter, however, was not only well known to 
the apostle, it was known and read of all men. It was a pal- 

ble evidence of his divine mission, which no one could be 
ignorant of, and which no one could gainsay. Men could not 
doubt its genuineness, nor could they question its import. 
He expresses the same idea when he says, “The seal of my 
apostleship are ye in the Lord,” 1 Cor. 9, 2. 


3. (Forasmuch as ye are) manifestly declared to be 
the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with 
ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not im ta- 
bles of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. 


The fact that the Corinthians were to Paul an epistle of 
commendation, is here confirmed  ὑμεῖς----φανερούμενοι ὅτι ἐστέ, 
abe conspicuous or Lacey known as the epistle of Christ. 

at is, an epistle of which Christ is the author. MJinistered_ 

us. The conversion of the Corinthians was. the work of 
hrist, effected by the ministry of Paul, Considered as a let- 
ter, they were a letter of Christ written by the hand of Paul 
as Christ’s instrument, The importance or superior worth of 
this epistle is set forth in what follows by a twofold contrast 
or comparison. First, it was not a letter written with ink, 
but by the Spirit of the living God. Any man_ could write 
with ink; Christ alone can write with the Spirit of God. 


- truth of the gospe 


52 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 4. 


This is a figurative way of expressing the idea that the con- 
version of the Corinthians was a divine, supernatural work, 
and therefore an irrefragable proof that Paul, by whose in- 
strumentality the work was effected, was the minister of 
Christ. This was a letter, therefore, infinitely above any or- 
dinary letter written with ink. Secondly, it was not an out- 
ward, but an inward, spiritual work. The decalogue, written 
on tables of stone by the finger of God, was indeed a divine 
work, and proved the divine mission of Moses; but what 
was that to writing the law upon the fleshly tables of the 
heart! The work of regeneration and sanctification is always 
represented in the Scripture as a much higher manifestation 
of divine power and grace than any mere external miracle, 
In predicting the new dispensation in contrast with the old, 
God says, * Behold the days come when I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel—not according to the cove- 
nant that I made with their fathers,—but I will put my law 
in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,” Jeremiah 
31, 31-33. To this the apostle evidently refers to show that 
the evidence of his mission was of a higher character than 
that of Moses, and that his ministry was far more exalted and 
glorious. 

Instead of the genitive, καρδίας, the great body of ancient 
MSS. have the dative, xapdias; on tables which are hearts of 
Jesh, instead of fleshly tables of the heart. The majority of 
editors adhere to the common text on the authority of the 
Greek fathers. The sense is the same. 


4. And such trust have we through Christ to 
God-ward. | 


This confidence in the divinity and glory of his mission, 
and in his sufficiency for the apostleship he had from Christ 
and in the presence of God. it was a confidence so strong 
(and yet so humble) that it did not quail even under the eye 
of God; much less therefore under the scrutiny of the bleared 
eyes of his opponents. Such confidence, not merely confi- 
dence in the fact that the Corinthians were to him a letter of 
commendation, but the confidence expressed in the whole 
context, and especially in 2, 15-17. This confidence he had 
through Christ. Tt was not self-confidence. It was not the 
consciousness of be oh excellence; but a conviction of the 

and of the reality of that vocation which 


Il. CORINTHIANS 8, δ, 53 


he had received from Christ. This confidence of the apostle 
that he was what God had called him to be, an able or fit 
minister of the gospel, was not a trait of natural character; 
it was not a conclusion from his inward and outward experi- 
ence; it was one of the forms in which the Spirit of God 
which was in him manifested itself; just as that Spirit mani- 
fested itself in his humility, faith, courage, or constancy. It 
is easy to determine whether such confidence is self-inflation, 
or the strength of God in the soul. If the former, it has its 
natural concomitants of pride, arrogance, indifference, con- 
tempt of others. If the latter, it is attended by self-abhor- 
rence, meekness, long-suffering, a willingness to be the least 
and lowest, and by all other graces of the Spirit, Zo God.- 
ward, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, This may mean in reference to God, i. 6. 
a confidence exercised toward God as its object. Or, πρός 
may be used here as in Rom, 4,2. Abraham, it is there said, 
had no καύχημα, ground of boasting, xpos Θεόν, before God ; 
that is, none that could stand his inspection. Paul says he 
had a confidence before God; that is, one which could endure 
in his sight. 


5. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think 
any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency (is) of 
God. 


The apostle had strongly asserted his sufficiency or fitness 
for his work. He here tells us what was not, and then what 
was, the source of his sufficiency. Vot that, i. 6.1 do not say, 
or, I do not mean, that we are sufficient of ourselves. In most 
of the older MSS. the words ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, of ourselves, stand 
after λογίζασϑαί τι, “ sufficient to think any thing of ourselves,” 
instead of, as in the common text, ‘sufficient of ourselves to 
think any thing.’ The former order of the words has greater 
authority, and gives perhaps the better sense. There is a dif- 
ference in the prepositions in Greek which is not expressed in 
the English. Paul says his sufficiency or ability to think any 
thing was not ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ὡς ἐξ ἑαυτῶν, not fom himself as out 
of himself. He was not the source of this sufficiency either 
remotely or immediately. We should express much the same 
idea by saying, ‘Our sufficiency is not in or of ourselves.’ 
Comp. Gal. 1,1. What he disclaims is sufficiency or ability 
to think any thing; the implication is any thing right or 


54 II. CORINTHIANS 3, 6. 


ἃ. He had no power of himself to accomplish any thing. 
iis fitness for his work, whether consisting in knowledge, or 
grace, or fidelity, or efliciency, did not arise out of any thing 
he was in or of himself. The word λογίζϑασϑαι does not here 
mean to judge, or to think out or determine. ‘The idea is not 
that Paul was of himself unable to judge what was best and 
right, i. e. to.think out the means of rendering his ministry 
successful. ‘The word is to be taken in its simplest sense, to 
think. Thought is the lowest form of our efficiency, in so far 
as it is much easier to think good, than either to will or to do 
it. Paul means to say that so far as the subject in hand is 
concerned, he could do nothing, not even think. He was in 
himself absolutely empty and powerless. Our sufficiency is 
of God. All our fitness for our work—all our knowledge, 
holiness and power are of God. They are neither self-acquired 
nor self-sustained. Iam nothing, the apostle would say ; God 
in me is every thing. The same truth and feeling are ex- 
pressed in 1 Cor, 15, 10. 


6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the 
new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit : 
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 


This verse is a confirmation of the preceding. The relative 
és is here used as in Luke 8, 13, and elsewhere, as implying 
the cause or reason. Our sufficiency is of God, who ; equiva- 
lent to for he hath made us able ministers. The same radical 
word is retained, ἱκάνωσε, hath rendered us ἱκανούς, sufficient, 
able, well qualified, ministers of the new testament, καινῆς 
διαϑήκης, of the new covenant, as the word διαϑήκῃ always 
means in the New Testament, unless Heb 9, 16 be an excep- 
tion. The covenant formed between God and the Hebrews 
at Mount Sinai is called the Old Covenant; the gospel dis- 
pensation as distinguished from the Mosaic is called the New 
Covenant. Matt. 26,28. 1 Cor. 11,25. Heb. 8,8. 9,15. το. 
As, however, the promises of the gospel, and especially the 
great promise of redemption by the blood*of Christ, underlay 
both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, the plan of 
salvation or the covenant of grace, 1s also called the New 
Covenant, although older than the Mosaic covenant, to dis- 
tinguish it from the covenant of works formed with Adam, 
This gives rise to no little obscurity. It is not always easy to 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 6. 55 


determine whether the words “new covenant” refer to the 
gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant 
of grace inaugurated in the first promise made to our fallen 
ents. And in like manner it is not easy always to decide 
whether the words the “ old covenant” designate the Mosaic 
covenant or the covenant of works. The context must in 
every case be our guide in deciding these questions. In the 
present case it is plain that by the New Covenant the apostle 
means the gospel as distinguished from the Law,—the Chris- 
tian as distinguished from the Mosaic dispensation. It was of 
that he was made a minister, and it is that which he contrasts 
with the Old Testament economy. Not of the letter, but of 
the spirit. These words admit of two constructions. They 
may depend on the word covenant. ‘Covenant not of the 
letter, but of the spirit.’ They thus determine the nature of 
the New Covenant as being not of the letter but of the spirit. 
This is the construction adopted by perhaps the pa ae of 
modern commentators, The older interpreters, followed by 
our translators, make the words in question depend on minis- 
ters. ‘* Ministers not of the letter, but of the spirit.” This 
latter is not only more familiar to the readers of the English 
version, but is favoured by the whole context. Paul contrasts 
two dispensations; one he calls the letter, the other the spirit. 
He says he is minister of the one, not of the other, and after- 
wards, vs. 7, 8, he speaks of the ministry of death and min- 
istry of the spirit; the ministry of condemnation and the 
ministry of righteousness, That the words /etter and spirit as 
here used mean the law and the gospel is plain, first, because 
it is the law and the gospel which he proceeds to compare in 
the following verses; and secondly, because these are terms 
which he elsewhere uses in the same sense. Thus in Rom. 7, 
6 he speaks of the oldness of the letter and newness of the 
spirit. In Rom. 2, 27 he characterizes the Jew as being of 
the letter, i. e. as having the law. Comp. also Gal. 3, 3. If 
it be asked what is the ground of these designations, why the 
law is called /etter, and the gospel spirit, it may be answered 
in the first place, that the law is called γράμμα, letter, for the 
same reason that it is called γράφη, scripture. It was some- 
thing written. Not only was the decalogue, the kernel of the 
Mosaic economy, originally written on stones, but the whole 
law was a volume known as the writings. And in the second 
lace, the law as written was something external and object- 
ive. It was addressed to the eye, to the ear, to the under- 
3* 


4 
: 


a el i 


56 II. CORINTHIANS 3, 6. 


standing. It was not an inward principle or power. It held 
up the rule of duty to which men were to be conformed, but 
it could not impart the disposition,or ability to obey. It was, 
as it were, a mere writing or book. On the other hand, the 
gospel is spiritual, as distinguished from what was external 
and ritual. It is the power of God, Rom. 1,6; the organ 
through which the Spirit works in giving life to the soul. 
These words therefore express concisely the characteristic dif 
ference between the law and the gospel. The one was exter- 
nal, the other spiritual; the one was an outward precept, the 
other an inward power. In the one case the law was written 
on stone, in the other on the heart. The one therefore was 
letter, the other spzrit. 

For the letter (i. e. the law) killeth, but the spirit (i. e. the 
gospel) giveth life. This is the reason why God hath made 


Paul the minister of the spirit. ‘God had made us able min- | 


isters not of the law but of the gospel, for the law kills, but 
the gospel gives life.» This passage and the following context 
present two important questions. First, in what sense does 
the law kill? And second, How is it that the apostle attrib- 
utes to the Mosaic system this purely legal character, when 
he elsewhere so plainly teaches that the gospel was witnessed 
or taught both in the law and the prophets? As to the for- 
mer of these questions, the answer furnished by the Scriptures 
is plain. The law demands perfect obedience. It says, “ Do 
this and live,” Rom, 10, 5. Gal. 8, 12, and “Cursed is every 
one who continueth not in all things written in the book of 
the law to do them,” Gal. 8,10. As no man renders this 
perfect obedience, the law condemns him. It pronounces on 
him the sentence of death. This is one way in which it kills. 
In the second place, it produces the knowledge or conscious- 
ness of sin, sill of course of guilt, that is, of just exposure to 
the wrath of God. Thus again it slays. And thirdly, by pre- 
senting the perfect standard of duty, which cannot be seen 
without awakening the sense of obligation to be conformed to 
it, while it imparts no disposition or power to obey, it exasper- 
ates the soul and thus again it brings forth fruit unto death, 
All these effects of the law are systematically presented by 
the apostle in the 6th and 7th chapters of his epistle to the 
tomans, and in the 3d chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. 

The second question is more difficult, Every reader of 
the New Testament must be struck with the fact that the 
apostle often speaks of the Mosaic law as he does of the moral 


— 


Il. CORINTHIANS 8, 6. 57 


law considered as a covenant of works; that is, presenting the 
promise of life on the condition of perfect obedience, He 
represents it as saying, Do this and live; as requiring works, 
and not faith, as the condition of acceptance. Rom. 10, 5-10. 
Gal. 3, 10-12. He calls it a ministration of death and con- 
demnation. He denies that it can give life. Gal. 3,21. He 
tells those who are of the law (that is, Judaizers) that they 
had fallen from grace; that is, had renounced the gratuitous 
method of salvation, and that Christ should profit them noth- 
ing. Gal. 5,2.4. In short, when he uses. the word law, and 
says that by the law is the knowledge of sin, that it can only 
condemn, that by its works no flesh can be justified, he in- 
cludes the Mosaic law; and in the epistle to the Galatians all 
these things are said with special reference to the law of Mo- 
ses. On the other hand, however, he teaches that the plan 
of salvation has been the same from the beginning; that 
Christ was the propitiation for the sins committed under the 
old covenant; that men were saved then as now by faith in 
Christ ; that this mode of salvation was revealed to Abraham 
and understood by him, and taught by cep and the prophets, 
This view is presented repeatedly in Paul’s epistles, and is ar- 

ued out in due form in Rom, 3, 21-31. Rom, 4, and Gal. 3. 

Ὁ reconcile these apparently conflicting representations it 
must be remembered that the Mosaic economy was designed 
to accomplish different objects, and is therefore presented in 
Scripture under different aspects. What, therefore, is true of 
it under one aspect, is not true under another. 1. The law 
of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant 
of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a 
condition, The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more 
than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect 
obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient 
expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God 
deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensa- 
tions, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian. Our 
Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to in- 
herit eternal life, “Ὁ What is written in the law? How readest 
thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thy- 
self. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this 
do and thon shalt live,” Luke 10, 26-28. This is the covenant 
of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no 


58 II. CORINTHIANS 3, 6. 


sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is 
death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to 
fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so 
prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character 
of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of 
condemnation and death, 2. The Mosaic economy was also a 
national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on 
the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it 
was purely legal. But 3, as the gospel contains a renewed 
revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revela- 
tion of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacri- 
fices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous 
method of salvation through a Redeemer. This necessarily 
supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salva- 
tion. It was those who trusted, not those free from sin, who 


were saved. Thus Moses wrote of Christ, John 5, 46; and . 


thus the law and the prophets witnessed of a righteousness of 
faith, Rom. 3, 21. When therefore the apostle spoke of the 
old covenant under its legal aspect, and especially when speak- 
ing to those who rejected the gospel and clung to the law of 
Moses as law, then he says, it kills, or is the ministration of 
condemnation. But when viewing it, and especially when 
speaking of those who viewed it as setting forth the great 
doctrine of redemption through the blood of Christ, he repre- 
sented it as teaching his own doctrine. The law, in every 
form, moral or Mosaic, natural or revealed, kills. In demand- 
ing works as the condition of salvation, it must condemn all 
sinners. But the gospel, whether as revealed in the promise 
to Adam after his fall, or in the promise to Abraham, or in 
the writings of Moses, or in its full clearness in the New Tes- 
tament, gives life. As the old covenant revealed both the law 
and the gospel, it either killed or gave life, according to the 
light in which it was viewed. And therefore Paul sometimes 
says it does the one, and sometimes the other. But the spirit 
giveth life. The spirit, or the gospel, gives life in a sense cor- 
relative to that in which the letter (i. 6. the law) kills. 1. By 
revealing a righteousness adequate to our justification, and 
thus delivering us from the sentence of death. 2. By pro- 
ducing the assurance of God’s love and the hope of his glo 
in the place of a dread of his wrath. 3. By becoming, throug 
the agency of the Holy Spirit, an inward principle or power 
transiorming us into the image of God; instead of a mere out- 
ward command, 


_ 


II. CORINTHIANS 3, 7. 8. 59 


7. 8. But if the ministration of death, written (and) 
engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children 
of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses 
for the glory of his countenance ; which (glory) was to 
be done away: how shall not the ministration of the 
Spirit be rather glorious ? 


It was the design and effect of the law to kill. This is 
true, so far as the work of salvation is concerned, of the law 
in all its forms, whether the moral law as revealed in the 
Scriptures, or as written in the heart, or as the Mosaic law. 
In all these forms it was designed to bring men to the knowl- 
edge of sin and helplessness; to produce a sense of guilt and 
misery, and a longing for redemption, and thus be a school- 
master to bring men to Christ. Gal. 3,24. This was a neces- 
sary office, and therefore glorious. But how can it compare 
with the gospel? How can that which only makes us know 
that we are sinful and condemned, be compared with that 
which delivers us from sin and condemnation? This is the 
idea which the apostle ΟΝ and, as it were with exulta- 
tion, turns over as though he could not let it go, in vs. 7-11. 
But if the ministration of death, written (and) graven in 
stones. The Greek is, & δὲ ἡ διακονία τοῦ ϑανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν 
ἕντετυπωμένη ἐν λίϑοις, but if the ministration of death in letters 

en in stones. The simplest interpretation of these 
words is that the ministration of death was in letters, i. e. by 
means of letters, engraven on stone; which is the sense ex- 
pressed by the free translation given in our common version. 
According to this view ἐν γράμμασιν are connected with what 
follows. But more commonly they are connected with what 
precedes; the ministration of death in letters, which Luther 
makes to mean, “the ministration which by means of letters 
(i. e. the written law) produces death.” This certainly gives 
a good sense and consistent with the context; but it is not so 
simple or natural as the one first mentioned. It will be ob- 
served that Paul says that the ministration was engraven on 
stone. It was, however, of course not the ministration (the 
oflice of a minister) but the law itself that was thus engraven. 
There are two things here stated. First, that Moses was the 
minister of a covenant that produced death; and secondly, 
that that covenant was an external economy or system. 
These two ideas are combined at the expense of mere verbal 


Sia oo =F 


60 11, CORINTHIANS 5, 7:8. 


accuracy in a single clause. The word διακονία, ministration, 
means either the service,i.e. the act of ministering, or the 
office of a διάκονος or minister. Commonly the former, In 
what sense the ministry of the law wasa ministry of death, 
and the reason why the law is described as engraven on stone, 
have already been stated. The law is thus exhibited as exter- 
nal, as opposed to what is spiritual. 

Was glorious, ἐγενήϑη ἐν δόξᾳ, existed in glory ; was sr- 
rounded, as it were, by a halo. The reference here is only 
indirectly to the brightness of Moses’s face, which was but a 
symbol of the glory of his ministration. The glory which per- 
tained to the old dispensation was not the illumination of the 
countenance of Moses, which was merely an incident. It was 
ef the same kind, though less in degree, as the glory of the 
gospel. The one dispensation was indeeg@ glorious, but. the 
other was more so. So that the children of Israel could not 
steadfastly behold the face of Moses. The whole service was 
so glorious that even the face of Moses was so bright that the 
gears could not look upon it. This brightness of the face of 

oses was in two respects a symbol of the glory of the old 
dispensation. In the first place, it was an outward brightness, 
So too the glory of the Mosaic dispensation was derived in 
large measure from its pompous ritual, its temple, its priest- 
hood, its sacrifice, and, above all, its Shekinah, or visible sym- 
bol of the divine presence. But what was all this to the glory 
of the gospel? What was a bright cloud overhanging the 
cherubim, to the light of God’s presence filling the soul? 
And secondly, the brightness of the face of Moses was tran- 
sient, The participle καταργουμένην may be taken as imperfect 
—They could not behold it as it was vanishing away ; or as 
present, which is evanescent, or perishable. It was in its own 
nature a mere transient brightness, analogous to the tempora- 
ry splendour of the service committed to an How shall not 
the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? If the one 
was glorious, how much more the other! The future shall is 
not to be understood in reference to the future world, The 
idea is not that hereafter, when Christ’s kingdom is consum- 
mated, the ministration of the gospel shall be found more glo- 
rious than that of the law. The future expresses the certain 
sequence, Ifthe ministration of death was glorious, the min- 
istration of the Spirit shall assuredly, if rightly considered, be 
regarded as glorious. This is plain from the fact that the 
things compared are the ministration committed to Moses and 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 9. 61 


the ministration committed to Paul; and also from the reason 
assigned for the superiority of tie latter, which is not what is 
to be realized in the future, but what is experienced in the 
present.. It was because it is the ministration of the spirit 
that it is more glorious than the ministration of death. The 
ideas of life and life-giving are inseparable from that of spirit. 
Hence the Holy Ghost in the ancient creeds of the church is 
designated as τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν. And 
hence the gospel as the source of life is called spirit. It is 
doubtful, however, whether the word spirit here refers to the 
Holy Spirit, or to the gospel. Luther renders the phrase ἡ 
διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος, das Amt, das den Geist giebt, i. 6. the οἵ 
fice which gives the Spirit; because it is by the ministration 
of the gospel the Holy Spirit is imparted to men. This view 
is perhaps commonly adopted. But as in v. 6, spirit, as op- 
sed to letter, evidently means the gospel as opposed to the 
aw, and as the things compared are the law and gospel, or 
the ministry of the one and the ministry of the other, the prob- 
ability is that Paul intended the word to be so understood 
here. The gospel is spirit because it is the source of life. 
Instead of being something external and powerless, it is in- 
io and saving; and this is the ground of its superiority to 
the law. 


9. For if the ministration of condemnation (be) 
glory, much more doth the ministration of righteous- 
ness exceed in glory. 


This verse is a confirmation of the preceding. The gospel 
is more glorious than the law, for the ministration of righteous- 
ness is more glorious than the ministration of condemnation, 
The ministration of condemnation is that ministration which 
brings men into a state of conscious condemnation; that is, 
which makes them know and feel that they are condemned. 
The ministration of righteousness is that ministration which 
reveals a righteousness by which men are justified, and thus 
freed from the condemnation pronounced upon them by the 
Jaw. As much better therefore as justification is than con- 
demnation to eternal death, so much better is the gospel than 
the law. Although the words κατάκρισις, condemnation, and 
δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, are here in antithesis, it does not fol- 
low that the latter means justification, which is a sense it 


7 


62 II. CORINTHIANS 3, 10. 


never has in the New Testament. It retains its proper mean- 
ing, righteousness, i. 6. that which the law demands. It is 
not justification, but the ground of it; that.on account of 
which a man is justified or pronounced righteous. The gos- 
pel, being the ministration of the spirit, is the ministration of 
righteousness, because as what is spirit is life-giving, the gos- 
pel must reveal a righteousness which satisfies the demands 
of the law, and thus free us from judicial death, or it could 
not be the source of life. It is true that the life of which the 
gospel is the source is more than mere justification; but as 
justification is the necessary condition of spiritual life, Paul 
here exalts the gospel by making it the means of securing 
that righteousness which is necessary to sanctification and in- 
separable from it. The use of the present tense, περισσεύει, 
doth abound, in this verse, serves to confirm the explanation 
given οὖν. 8. Paul in both instances is speaking of the glory 
which now belongs to the ministry of the gospel, not of what 
is to be hereafter. 


10. For even that which was made glorious hath 
no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that 
excelleth. 


For even, καὶ γάρ, for moreover. Too little was said in 
simply asserting that the gospel excelled the law. The law, 
though glorious in itself, ceased to be glorious in the presence 
of the gospel, as the moon loses its brightness in the presence 
of the sun. TZhat which was made glorious, τὸ δεδοξασμένον, 
that which was and is glorious, viz. the ministry of Moses, and, 
by implication, the law or dispensation of which he was the 
minister. Hath no glory, οὐ δεδόξασται, is not glorious, ἐν 
τούτῳ τῷ μέρει, in this particular. This is explained by what 
follows. Because of the glory that excelieth. The ministry 
of the gospel so much excels the ministry of the law, that the 
latter ceases in the comparison to be glorious at ali. This is 
the common and natural interpretation of the text. Two other 
explanations have been proposed. First, the words ἐν τούτῳ 
τῷ μέρει are connected with δεδοξασμένον, that which was glori- 
ous (viz, the ministry of Moses), in this particular, viz. that the 
face of Moses was rendered luminous. This gives a very in- 
significant sense. The shining of the face of Moses was not 
the glory of his ministry or of the old economy. It was but 


ν᾿ 
—~ 


II. CORINTHIANS 3, 11. 63 


a symbol of it. Second, Meyer and others, retaining the ordi- 
nary construction of the passage, make the apostle say, that 
the general truth that the lesser glory is eclipsed by the 
greater, was illustrated in this case, 1. e. in the case of Moses 
and his ministry. This brings out the same sense as that 
given Py, oe ordinary interpretation, but in a less natural 
way. t which was made glorious, τὸ δεδοξασμένον, natu- 
rally refers to the definite subject of which the context treats, 
which is the ministry of Moses. 


11. For if that which was done away (was) glorious, 
much more that which remaineth (is) glorious. 


A new ground of superiority. The old dispensation and 
its ministry were temporary, the new is permanent. There is 
nothing to intervene, no new revelation, no new economy, be- 
tween the gospel and its ministry, and the final consummation, 
Whoever are to be converted, whatever nations are to be 
brought in, it must be by the preaching of the gospel, which 
remaineth, or is to continue, according to Christ’s promise, 
until the end of the world. In the former clause the apostle 
says the law was διὰ δόξης, with glory, in the latter, that the 
gospel was ἐν δόξῃ, in glory. This is a mere variation of ex- 
pression without any difference of meaning. Comp. Rom. 3, 
30. 5,10. That the binding authority of the law ceased on 
the introduction of the gospel, is a doctrine which the apostle 
had to sustain against the Judaizing tendency of the early 
Christians, on many occasions. To this point the epistles to 
the Galatians and to the Hebrews are principally directed. 
As Paul’s opponents in Corinth were of this class, there is 
little doubt that what he here says of the inferiority and tem- 
porary character of the old economy had a special reference 
to them; while his strong assertion of his divine mission, of 
the dignity and superiority of the ministry which he had re- 
ceived, was intended to counteract the influence of their in- 
vidious attacks upon his authority. No less clear is the incul- 
cation of the other great truth here presented. The gospel 
did away the law, but is itself never to be superseded. ‘These 
are “the last times,” the last dispensation, which is to con- 
tinue until the consummation of all things. ; 


64 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 12. 


The clearness and freedom of the Gospel as contrasted with 
the obscurity of the Law. Vs. 12-18. 


The apostle having referred to the transient brightness of 
Moses’s face, as a symbol of the passing glory of his ministry, 
here employs the fact that Moses veiled his face as a twofold 
illustration. In the first place, it is symbolical of the obseuri- 
ty of the revelation made under the old dispensation. As the 
brightness of Moses’s face was covered, so spiritual or evan- 
gelical truth was of old covered under the types and shadows 
of the Mosaic economy. In the second place, it is symbolical 
of the blindness which rested on the minds of the Jews, which 
prevented their seeing the true import of their own institu- 
tions, vs. 12-15. Nevertheless, as Moses removed the veil 
from his face when he turned to the Lord, so both the ob- 
scurity which rests on the law, and the blindness which rests 
upon the mind of the Jew, are dispelled when he turns 
towards Christ. The vision of his glory transforms the soul 
into his likeness, vs. 16-18. ᾿ 


12. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use 
ereat plainness of speech. 


Seeing then that we have such hope, literally, Having then 
such hope, i.e. because we have it. The hope to which he refers 
must be that mentioned in the context, v. 14, that the gospel 
and its ministry were, and would prove themselves to be, far 
superior to the law and to the ministry of Moses. What in 
v. 4 he ealls πεποίϑησις, confidence, he here calls ἐλπίς, hope, 
because the confidence which he felt had reference not only to 
the present, but also to the future. We use great plainness 
of speech, i. 6. παῤῥησία, outspokenness. This stands opposed 
to all concealment, whether from timidity or from a desire to 
deceive; and also to all fear of consequences. It is a frank, 
open, courageous manner of speech. Paul therefore says that 
in his case it was the result of his firm conviction of his divine 
mission and of the truth and glory of the gospel which he 
preached, that he proclaimed it fully, intelligibly, and with- 
out regard to consequences, Its being to the Greeks foolish- 
ness, and to the Jews a stumblingblock, did not prevent his 
declaring the whole counsel of God. The same cause will 
ever produce the same effect. If Paul’s experience of the 
truth and excellence of the gospel led him to declare it with- 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 13. 65 


out reserve, a similar experience will produce a similar open- 
ness and boldness in other ministers of the gospel. This in- 
deed is one of the glories of Christianity. It is characteristic 
of error to practise reserve and to seek concealment. In all 
the religions of antiquity there was an esoteric and exoteric 
doctrine; one for the people and the other of the initiated. 
They all had mysteries carefully concealed from the public 
eye. Sointhe Romish church, just in proportion as it is in- 
fected with the spirit of heathenism the babe i of reserve is - 
avowed and practised. The gospel is not preached with 
openness, so that all may understand it. The people are kept 
in ignorance. They are told they need not know ; that faith 
without knowledge, a blind confidence in rites which they do 
not understand, is all-sufficient. But ifa man in a church has 
the conviction that the gospel is of God, that it is unspeakably 
glorious, adapted to all and needed by all in order to salva- 
tion, then the word will be preached openly and without 
reserve, | 


13. And not as Moses, (which) put a veil over his 
face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly 
look to the end of that which is abolished. 


And not as Moses, that is, we do not do what Moses did. 
Paul had just said that he used great plainness of speech, that 
he practised no concealment or reserve. Of course he means 
that Moses did the reverse. He did use concealment and 
practise reserve. This is no impeachment of the character 
of Moses. Paul is not speaking of his personal character, but 
of the nature of his office. The truth concerning man’s re- 
demption was not “in other ages made known unto the sons 
of men as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and 
prophets by the Spirit,’ Eph, 3,5. It was not consistent 
with the nature of the ministry of Moses to use the παῤῥησία, 
the openness, in communicating the doctrines of redemption, 
which it is the glory of the Christian ministry to be permitted 
to employ. He was sent to speak in parables and in types, to 
set forth truth in the form of significant rites and ceremonies, 
He put a veil over the glory, not to hide it entirely from 
view, but to obscure its brightness, The people saw the 
light, but only occasionally and imperfectly. Paul had alrea- 
dy spoken of the brightness of Moses’s face as a symbol of his 


66 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 13. 


ministry, and therefore he represents him as veiling ἜΠΗ 
to express the idea that he communicated the truth obscurely. 
Paul was sent to let the truth shine forth clearly; he did not 
puta veil over it as Moses did, and was commanded to do, 
That the children of Israel couil not steadfastly look to the end 
of that which is abolished. That is, to prevent their seeing the 
end or fading away of the brightness of his face. The word 
καταργούμενος (that which is abolished) is used, v. 7, in refer- 
ence to the glory of the face of Moses, and ν. 11 in reference 
to his ministry and the dispensation to which it belonged. 
Here the reference is to the former, because his face is spoken 
of, and its brightness was veiled, and therefore, it was the 
brightness the end of which the Israclites were prevented 
from seeing. If this be so, then τέλος, the end, must mean the 
termination, and not the design or scope. In Rom. 10, 4, 
Christ is said to be the end of the law, not only as abrogating 
it, but as being the object towards which it tended. He was 
that which it was intended to reveal. Those commentators 
who make καταργούμενον (that which is abolished) refer to the 
old law and its ministry, give τέλος the sense of end or object. 
They understand the apostle to say that Moses put a veil over 
his face to prevent the children of Israel seeing Christ, who was 
the end of the law. But this gives a most incongruous mean- 
ing. How could Moses’s veiling his face prevent the Israel- 
ites seeing Christ? The first part of the verse cannot be 
taken literally, and the latter part figuratively. If the veiling 
was a literal covering of the face, that which the veil hid must 
be something which a literal veil could cover. The majority 
of commentators, therefore, understand the words, that which 
is abolished, to refer to the visible brightness of the face of 
Moses, and the end to mean the termination of that brightness, 
The whole clause therefore means that Moses veiled his face 
in order to prevent the Israelites seeing how soon its bright- 
ness faded. But what has this to do with the point in hand ? 
In answering this question it must be remembered that the 
apostle had referred to the brightness of the face of Moses as 
a fit symbol of his ministry, inasmuch as it was external and 
transient. To say, therefore, that Moses veiled his face that 
the people might not see the end of its brightness, is a figura- 
tive way of saying that Moses hid the light, or taught ob- 
scurely, that the people might not understand the true nature 
and intent of his ministry. But how is it consistent with the 
character of God that he should commission Moses to teach 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 13. 67 


obscurely in. order that he might not be understood? Some 
endeavour to obviate this difficulty by saying that πρὸς τὸ μὴ 
ἀτενίσαι expresses the result and not the design. ‘He put a 
veil over his face, so that (not, in order that) the children of 
Israel did not see the end of that which is abolished” Or, to 
drop the figure, ‘He taught obscurely, so that the people did 
not understand him,’ This explanation, however, is forbidden 
by the force of the preposition πρός, which in such connections 
properly expresses the design or intention. There is no spe- 
cial difficulty in the matter. Whatever is, God intended 
should be, If Moses taught obscurely or in types, God in- 
tended that he should do so. If, in point of fact, the Jews 
misunderstood the nature of their own economy, regarding as 
ultimate and permanent what was in fact preparatory and 
temporary, this was included in the divine purpose. It was 
evidently the plan of God to make the revelation of the 
scheme of redemption gradually. The whole was by slow 
degrees evolved irom the original promise made to our first 
parents. Perhaps the object of their faith was the simple 
promise of redemption. To Abraham it was revealed that 
the Redeemer was to be one of his descendants. ‘To Moses it 
was made known that he wus to be a prophet like himself, and 
the nature of his work was obscurely set forth in the priest- 
hood and sacrifices which he ordained. This was enough for 
salvation, so long as nothing more had been revealed. It was 
in accordance with this plan that Moses spoke in such a way 
that the people did not understand the full import of his 
teaching, God having purposed “that they without us should 
not be made perfect,” Heb. 11, 40. The passage before us is 
parallel, in a measure, to Mark 4, 11, where our Lord says, 
* Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom 
of God; but unto them that are without all these things are 
done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not per- 
ceive.” ‘There is, therefore, as just remarked, no special diffi- 
culty in this passage, even if it is understood to teach that 
Moses was commissioned so to veil his teachings that they 
should not be clearly understood. ‘There is another difficulty 
connected with this verse. It does not seem to agree with 
Exodus 34, 30. There it is said that the people were afraid 
to apptoac’ Moses on account of the brightness of his face, 
and the implication (according to the English version, at least) 
is, that it was to calm their fears he put on a veil. Whereas 
here it is said that he put a veil over his face that the people 


68 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 14. 


might not see the transient nature of that brightness. There 
is no inconsistency between the two accounts. The veiling 
had both effects; it calmed the fears of the people, and it pre- 
vented their seeing how fleeting the brightness was. As both 
effects followed, both were intended. Paul in this epistle as- 
signs in different places three or four reasons why he com- 
manded the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous 
member of their church. That it was meant as a test of their 
obedience, 2, 9, is not incompatible with its being a proof of 
his care for them, 7,12. There is, however, not even the ap- 
pearance of discrepancy between what the apostle here says 
and Exodus 34, 30-33, as it is rendered both in the Septuagint 
and Vulgate. The English version of that passage is, “ And 
when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, 
the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh 
him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the 
rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses 
talked with them,...* And εὐ Moses had done speaking 
with them, he put a veil on his face.’ According to this 
Moses put a veil over his face when he spoke to the people, 
and the in»plication is that he did it because they were afraid 
on account of the brightness of his countenance, But the 
Hebrew, in v. 33, is simply, “ Moses ceased to speak with 
them, and put a veil over his face.” The natural meaning of 
which is that he did not veil his face until he had ceased 
speaking, The Septuagint therefore renders the passage, 
“And when he ceased speaking with them, he put a veil over 
his face.” And the Vulgate, impletisque sermonibus, posuit 
velamen super faciem suam. It appears from the following 
verses that when Moses went in before the Lord, he removed 
the veil; and when he came out his face shone, and he spake 
to the people, and again resumed the veil. According to this 
interpretation of the original, the object of putting on the veil 
was not to calm the fear of the people, but, as Paul says, to 
prevent their seeing how the brightness of his face vanished. 


14. But their minds were blinded; for until this 
day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the read- 
ing of the Old ‘Testament ; which (veil) is done away 
in Christ. | 

In the preceding verse Paul was speaking of his ministry ; 


Il. CORINTHIANS 8, 14. 69 


the same subject is resumed in the following chapter. Verses 
14-18 are therefore a digression, although intimately con- 
nected with what precedes and follows. The particle ἀλλά 
either introduces something just the reverse of what pre- 
cedes, and means on the contrary, or simply something 
different, and is to be rendered but. This verse admits 
of two modes of connection with what precedes. ‘The Jews 
did not understand the ministry of Moses, on the contrary, 
their minds were blinded.’ Or, the connection may be with 
the main idea of the preceding context. ‘ We use great plain- 
ness of speech, but their minds are blinded” That is, not- 
withstanding the clearness with which the gospel is presented 
as the substance and true meaning of the old economy, still 
the Jews were so blinded they did not perceive it. In either 
way the sense is good, But as it is so much the habit of the 
apostle to connect what follows with what immediately pre- 
cedes, and as the figure of the veil, which is not mentioned in 
v. 12, is continued in vy. 14, it is most natural to make the con- 
nection with v, 13, where that figure is introduced, especially 
as Paul’s immediate object in v. 12 is not to exhibit his plain- 
ness of speech in opposition to the hebetude of the Jews. It 
is the general fact that under the new dispensation the truth 
is exhibited plainly which he asserts, The blindness of the 
Jews is only incidentally introduced. Their minds, νοήματα, 
thoughts, affections. It means the whole inner man. Were 
Blinded, ἐπωρώϑη, properly were rendered hard or callous. The 
word is used both of the understanding and of the feelings. 
It expresses an inaptitude both of seeing and feeling. They 
neither understood nor felt the power of the truth. or un- 
til this day remaineth untaken away the same veil. 'This is a 
confirmation derived from experience of the fact previously 
stated. That the minds of the Israelites were thus blinded 
and hardened, is proved from the fact that until this day they 
do not sinderinen ἢ the law. Zhe same veil, i, 6. the same ob- 
security. A veil was thrown over the truth as first revealed 
by Moses, and that same veil is there still. The Israelites of 
Paul’s day understood their Scriptures as little as their fathers 
did. They remained satisfied with the external, ritual and 
ceremonial, without penetrating to what was beneath, or ask- 
ing the real import of the types and shadows of the old econo- 
my. In the reading of the Old Testament, that is, when the 
Old Testament re ope isread. This metonymical use of 
the word covenant for the books in which that covenant is 


70 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 14. 


contained, is perfectly familiar to our ears, as we are accus- 
tomed to call the two great divisions of the Scriptures the Old 
and New Testaments or covenants; but this is the only in- 
stance of this use of the word in the New Testament. The 
English version does not in this passage follow the order of 
the Greek, which reads, “‘ For until this day the same veil in 
the reading of the old covenant remains.” Here the sense is 
complete. The following clause, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν 
Χριστῷ καταργεῖται, admits of three interpretations. 1. The 
first is that adopted by our translators; μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον is 
referred to the preceding clause (remains untaken away), 
and ὅτι (because, or that) is read as two words, 6 τι, which, 1. 6. 
which veil is done away in Christ. So Luther, in his free 
translation: Denn bis auf den heutigen Tag bleibet dieselbige 
Decke unaufgedeckt tber das Alten Testament wenn sie es 
lesen, welche in Christo aufhéret. The great majority of 
editors, however, read ὅτι. 2. The word ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, Un- 
taken away, is, as before, referred to κάλυμμα, veil, and ὅτι is 
rendered because. ‘The veil remains untaken away, because 
it is removed (only) in Christ.’ 3. ἀνακαλυπτόμενον is taken 
absolutely, and ὅτι is rendered that. ‘The veil remains, it be- 
ing unrevealed that it (viz. the old covenant) is done away 
in Christ.? In favour of this last-mentioned interpretation it is 
urged, that the old covenant was in fact done away in Christ, 
and that ignorance of that fact prevented the Jews under- 
standing their own Scriptures. The sense therefore is good, 
Besides, the word xarapyeira, is done away, is the proper term 
to express the abrogation of the law, but not so suitable to 
express the idea of the removal of a veil, for which, in y. 16, 
Paul uses the word περιαιρεῖται, is removed. ‘The word καταρ- 
γέω is used in verses 7. 11 and 13, to express the passing away 
of the brightness of the face of Moses, and of his ministry and 
dispensation, of which that brightness was the symbol, and 
therefore it is the more probable that it has the same refer- 
ence here. On the other hand, however, it must be admitted 
that ἀνακαλυπτόμενον naturally agrees with κάλυμμα, the veil re- 
mains untaken away, and that ἀνακαλύπτω, to uncover or Un- 
veil, is not the common word to express the idea of makin 

known or revealing. See v. 18, ἀνακαλυπτομένῳ προσώπῳ, wit 

unveiled face. The second interpretation, therefore, above 
mentioned, is on the whole to be preferred, ‘The veil which 
hid the meaning of the Old Testament remained unremoved, 
because it is done away in Christ, whom the Jews rejected.’ 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 15. 16. "1 


The Old Testament Scriptures are intelligible only when un- 
derstood as predicting and prefiguring Christ. The present 
καταργεῖται (is done away) is used as expressing the certain 
consequence. The knowledge of Christ, as a matter of fact 
and as a matter of course, removes the veil from the Old 
Testament. 


15. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, 
the veil is upon their heart. 


But, ἀλλά, on the contrary, i.e. so far from being taken 
away, the veil remains until this day. When Moses is read. 
The word ἡνίκα, when, is used in the New Testament only 
here and in v. 16. As it occurs often in the Septuagint, and 
is used in Exodus 34, 34, it is the more probable that the lan- 
guage of that version was before the apostle’s mind, and de- 
termined the mode in which he presents the incident of Moses 
veiling his face, which, as shown above, accords better with 
the view which the Septuagint gives of the original than with 
_ that presented in the Fnglish version. In Acts 15, 21, Moses, 
it is said, was read every sabbath day in the synagogues, 
The veil, or, as the article is wanting, a veil, was, however, 
over his face. The apostle presents the idea that the Jews 
did not understand their Scriptures in two forms. He sa 
in y. 14, that a veil rests on the Old Testament, and here that 
a veil was over the hearts of the Jews. The true source of 
the want of knowledge was subjective. The revelation of 
Christ, even in the writings of the Old Testament, though ob- 
scure when compared with that contained in the writings of 
the apostles, was sufficiently clear to be understood if the 
Jews had only been in aright state of mind. Hence our Lord 
upbraided his disciples, saying, ‘‘ O fools and slow of heart to 
believe all that the prophets have spoken,” Luke 24, 25. Com- 
pare Acts 13, 27-29. The darkness was not so much in the 
Scriptures, as in their minds. 


16. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, 
the veil shall be taken away. 


According to the narrative in Ex. 34, 29-35, as understood 
by the Septuagint, and as expounded by the apostle, the face 
of Moses was made to shine by speaking with the Lord; when 
among the people (except when delivering his message) he 

4 


72 Il. CORINTHIANS 8, 1%. 


wore a veil; when he turned to the Lord he removed the 
veil. To this allusion seems to be here made. So long as the 
people were turned from the Lord, the veil was on their heart ; 
they could not understand the Scriptures; as soon as they 
turn to the Lord, the veil is removed, and all is bright and 
intelligible. When it shall turn to the Lord ; ἡνίκα δ᾽ ἂν ἐπισ- 
tpely, when it has turned, i, e. when that conversion is accom- 
plished, and as often as it occurs. The most natural subject 
of the verb ἐπιστρέψῃ (turned) is καρδία (heart). A veil is on 
the heart, but when it turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 
As, however, the apostle is speaking of the heart of the Jews, 
and as the turning of their heart is their turning, so the sense 
is the same if the word Israel be supplied. The veil is on the 
heart of the people, but when the people turn to the Lord the 
veil is taken away. Calvin and others supply J/oses as the 
nominative. By Moses, however, Calvin understands the 
Law. ‘ When Moses is read, a veil is on the heart of the 
Jews; but when he, i. e. the law, is directed to Christ, who is 
the end of the law, then the veil is removed. That is, as 
soon as the Jews see that their law relates to Christ, then 
they understand it. This, however, is obviously an unnatural 
interpretation, as ἐπιστρέψῃ expresses the turning of the heart 
or of the people to God, and not giving the law a particular 
interpretation. Stanley, who also says that J/oses must be 
the nominative of the verb, makes him, however, the repre- 
sentative, not of the law, but of the people. ‘When Moses 
turns to the Lord he strips off the veil.’ The word περιαιρεῖται 


he gives an active sense, according to its common use in the ᾿ 


Septuagint, This too is less simple and natural than the com- 
mon interpretation given above. The veil was on the heart 
of the people, and when ἐξ, i. e. their heart, turns to the Lord, 
it is stripped off ; περιαιρεῖται is the word used in Ex, 34, 34. 
By Lord here, as the context shows, we are to understand 
Christ. He is the Lord whom Moses saw face to face on 
Mount Sinai, and to whom the Jews and all others must turn 
if they would enjoy the light of salvation. 


17. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the 
Spirit of the Lord (is), there (is) hberty. 
The first point to be determined with regard to this diffi- 


cult passage, is the relation in which it stands to what pre- 
cedes, 10 may be either an explanation or an inference, If 


Il. CORINTHIANS 9, 17. 73 


the former, then it 1s designed to show why turning to the 
Lord secures the removal of the veil from the heart. It is 
because the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit is, there 
is liberty, freedom from the law, from its bondage and ob- 
securities, If the latter, then the idea is, that since the veil is 
removed by turning to the Lord, it follows as a further conse- 
quence that by thus turning we have liberty. The force of 
the particle δέ, which so often introduces an explanation, and 
the whole structure of the passage is in favour of the first in- 
terpretation. 2. It is plain that the Lord here means Christ. 
This is clear not only because the word Lord, as a general 
rule, in the New Testament, refers to Christ, but also because 
the context in this case demands that reference. In v. 14 it 
is said that the veil is done away in Christ, and in vy. 16 that it 
is removed when the heart turns to the Lord, and here that 
the Lord is the Spirit. The main idea of the whole context 
is, that the recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord, or Jehovah, is 
the key to the Old Testament. It opens all its mysteries, or, 
to use the figure of the apostle, it removes the veil which hid 
from the Jews the true meaning of their own Scriptures. As 
soon as they turn to the Lord, i. e. as soon as they recog- 
nize Jesus Christ as their Jehovah, then every thing becomes 
bright and clear. It is plain, therefore, that the Lord spoken 
of is Christ. This also determines another point, viz. that 
Lord is here the subject, and Spirit the predicate. Paul says 
that “The Lord is the Spirit,” and not “The Spirit is the 
Lord.” ‘The latter view of the passage is taken by many of 
the Fathers, who regard it as a direct assertion of the divinity 
of the Holy Ghost. Although the words would admit of this 
interpretation, it is evidently inconsistent with the context 
It also follows from the fact that ‘* Lord” here means Christ, 
that it must designate his person and not his doctrine. The 
ees does not mean to say that the doctrine of Christ, or 

e gospel, or new covenant, is the Spirit. It is true that in 
v. 6, when contrasting the law and the gospel, he calls the one 
the letter and the other the spirit; but this does not authorize 
us to make Lord mean the gospel because the Lord is said to 
be the Spirit. As in the preceding verses Christ and Lord 
refer to Christ as a person; the word Lord must have the 
same reference here. 3. When Paul says “The Lord is the 
Spirit,” he does not mean to say that ‘the Lord is a spirit,’ 
agreeably to the analogy of John 4, 24, where it is said “ God 
is a spirit.” This is not only opposed to the force of the arti- 


74 11. CORINTHIANS 8, 17. 


cle τὸ before πνεῦμα, the Spirit, but also to the connection, as 
Paul is speaking of Christ’s office rather than of his na- 
ture. It is not his object to say that Christ is a spiritual be- 
ing. Neither is the idea that he is replenished with the Holy 
Spirit, so as to be in that sense and on that account called the 
Spirit. This is not the meaning of the words, nor is the idea 
demanded by the context. The two interpretations which 
the words admit are either, first, that which our translators 
probably intended to indicate when they rendered τὸ πνεῦμα 
that Spirit. “The Lord is that Spirit,” that is, the spirit 
spoken of in v. 6; the spirit which stands opposed to the let- 
ter, that which gives life and righteousness; the inner sense 
of the law, the saving truth and power hidden under the types 
and forms of the Mosaic economy. Christ, says Calvin, is the 
life of the law. Accedat anima ad corpus: et fit vivus homo, 
preeditus intelligentia et sensu, ad vitales actiones idoneus: 
tollatur anima a corpore, et restabit inutile cadaver, omnique 
sensu vacuum, ‘Thus if Christ is present in the Mosaic law, 
it is living and life-giving ; if he is absent from it, it is dead and 
death-dispensing. Christ is therefore ¢thaé spirit which ani- 
mates the law or institutions of Moses, and when this is recog- 
nized, the veil which hides their meaning is removed. True 
as all this is, it can hardly be expressed by the simple words 
ὁ κύριος TO πνεῦμά ἐστι, the Lord is the Spirit. The words τὸ 
πνεῦμα, “the Spirit,” have in the New Testament a fixed and 
definite meaning, which is not to be departed from unless the 
context renders such departure necessary. Besides, this in- 
terpretation requires that “ the Spirit” should mean one thing, 
and “the Spirit of the Lord” another, in the same verse. 
This, however, can hardly be admitted. If“ the Spirit of the 
Lord,” in the last clause, means the Holy Spirit, which will 
not be questioned, “the Spirit,” in the first clause, must have 
the same meaning. ‘The other interpretation, therefore, must 
be adopted. “The Lord is the Spirit,” that is, Christ is the 
Holy Spirit; they are one and the same. Not one and the 
same person, but one and the same Being, in the same sense 
in which our Lord says, “1 and the Father are one.” It is an 
identity of essence and of power. Christ is the Holy Spirit, 
because, being the same in substance, where Christ is, there 
the Spirit is, and where the Spirit is, there is Christ. There- 
fore this same apostle interchanges the three forms of expres- 
sion as synonymous, “the Spirit of Christ,” ‘ Christ,” and 
“the Spirit,” Rom. 8, 9.10, The Holy Ghost is everywhere 


II. CORINTHIANS 3, 17. 75 


in the Bible recognized as the source of all life, truth, power, 
holiness, blessedness and glory. The apostle, however, had 
in the context spoken of Christ as the source of life, as deliver- 
ing from the death and bondage of the law. He is and does 
this because he and the Spirit are one; and therefore wher- 
ever Christ is, or in other words, wherever the Spirit of Christ 
is, or in other words still, wherever the Spirit is, there is liber- 
ty. By turning unto Christ we become partakers of the Holy 
Spirit, the living and life-giving, because he and the Spirit are 
one, and Christ dwells in his people, redeeming them from the 
law and making them the children of God, by his Spirit. Zhe 
Spirit of the Lord, as a designation of the Holy Ghost, shows 
that the Spirit stands in the same relation to the Son that he 
does to the Father. Therefore he is called the “Spirit of 
Christ,” Rom. 8, 10, and “ Spirit of His Son,” Gal. 4,6. And, 
therefore, also the Son is said to send and give the Spirit. 
John 16, 7. All this of course supposes the supreme divinity 
of our Lord. The liberty of which the apostle here speaks, 
must be that liberty which is consequent on the indwelling of 
the Holy Spirit, that is, which flows from the application to us 
of the redemption purchased by Christ. We have not re- 
ceived, says the apostle, the Spirit of bondage again to fear, 
but the Spirit of adoption. Rom, 8, 15, The liberty here in- 
tended is the glorious liberty of the children of God, Rom. 
8, 21. It isthe liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. 
Gal. 5,1. This includes, 1. Freedom from the law in all its 
forms, Mosaic and moral, Rom. 6, 14. 7, 4, i. e. freedom from 
the obligation to fulfil the law as the condition of our justifica- 
tion before God; which involves freedom from condemnation 
and from a legal, slavish spirit. 2. Freedom from the dominion 
of sin, Rom. 7, 6, and from the power of Satan. Heb, 2, 14. 15. 
ὃ. Freedom from the bondage of corruption, not only as to 
the soul, but as to the body. Rom, 8, 21-23. This liberty, 
therefore, includes all that is involved in being the sons of 
God. Incidental to this liberty is freedom from all ignorance 
and error, and all subjection to the authority of men, except 
so far as it represents the authority of Christ, and therefore 
liberty of conscience or freedom from all authority in matters 
of religion other than that of the Spirit of God. ‘There is not 
only no reason for restricting the idea of the liberty of which 
the apostle speaks to any one of these forms, but the context 
requires that it should include ail that liberty of which the 
presence of the Spirit is the source and the assurance. As no 


76 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 18. 


man in this life is perfectly and at all times filled with the 
Spirit of Christ, he is never in this life a partaker of the full 
liberty of which Christ is the author. 


18. But we all, with open face beholding as Ina 
glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same 
image from glory to glory, (even) as by the Spirit of 
the Lord. 


This verse is connected with the preceding by the simple 
particle of transition δέ, but. The natural consequence of the 
liberty mentioned in vy. 17 is what is here stated. We ail, i. 6. 
all whom the indwelling of the Spirit of the Lord has made 
free. They are delivered from the bondage of the law, the 
veil has been removed from their face, and being turned to 
the Lord, they behold his glory with open face, ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ 
προσώπῳ, i. 6. with a face which has been, and which remains 
unveiled. The darkness arising from alienation, ignorance, 
misconception and prejudice has been dissipated, so that we 
can see clearly. Beholding as in a glass or mirror. ‘This is 
probably the proper interpretation of the word here’ used. 
ἹΚατοπτρίζω, in the active voice, means to show in a@ mirror, 
and in the middle, (the form here used,) it generally means, 
to see one’s self in amirror. This is its constant use in the 
classics. But in Philo it is used to express the idea of seeing 
by means of a mirror. As this sense is perfectly suited to this 
passage it is generally adopted by commentators, because the 
other explanations given to the word are either contrary to 
usage or to the context. Some render it simply beholding. 
But to this it is objected that it overlooks the special etymo- 
logical signification of the word, and that drevigw, which oceurs 
twice in this chapter, vs. 7 and 13, is the proper term for that 
idea. Besides, this interpretation loses sight of the figure in- 
volved in the passage. It is an image we see, and therefore 
we see, as it were, by reflection, or as in a glass. Luther, 
after Chrysostom, renders the word, reflecting as in a mirror. 
This explanation is adopted by Bengel, Billroth, Olshausen 
and others. They understand the apostle to say that Chris- 
tians reflect, with an unveiled face, the glory of the Lord. 
They suppose that allusion is had to the glory of God as re- 
flected from the face of Moses, which was transient and veiled ; 
whereas, in the case of Christians, the glory of the Lord is 


Il. CORINTHIANS 8, 18. "7 


constantly and clearly manifested in them and by them. 
They reflect his image wherever they go. But, in the first 
place, this explanation is inconsistent with the signification of 
the word, which never means to reflect; secondly, it is con- 
trary to the context. The contrast is not between Moses and 
Christians, but between the Jews, or the unconverted, and 
Christians. The former were blinded by a veil, the latter see 
with an unveiled face. The one see and the others do not. 
This is obviously the antithesis implied, and not that the one 
class do, and the other do not reflect the glory of the Lord. 
In the third place, the relation in which this verse stands to 
the preceding forbids this interpretation. We have here the 
effect of turning to the Lord. We are delivered from the 
law, we are made free, we are introduced into the presence of 
the Lord, and enabled to behold his glory. And, finally, this 
interpretation overlooks the causal relation between the two 
clauses of this verse. We are transformed into the image of 
the Lord by beholding it, not by reflecting it. The common 
interpretation is therefore to be preferred; beholding as in a 
mirror. ‘Though in comparison with the unconverted those 
who are ene to the Lord see clearly, or with an unveiled 
face, still it is only asin amirror. 1 Cor. 13,12. It is not 
the immediate, beatific vision of the glory of the Lord, which 
is only enjoyed in heaven, but it is that manifestation of his 
lory which is made in his word and by his Spirit, whose office 
it is to glorify Christ by revealing him to us. John 16, 14. 
The object which we behold 1s the glory of the Lord, i, e. 
as the context evidently demands, of Christ. The glory of 
Christ is his divine excellence. The believer is enabled to see 
that Jesus is the Son of God, or God manifested in the flesh. 
This is conversion. Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the 
Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1 John 4, 15. 
The turning unto the Lord mentioned in the preceding verse 
is recognizing Christ as Jehovah. This is not only conversion, 
it is religion. It is the highest state of the human soul. It is 
eternal life, John 17,3. Hence our Lord prays that his dis- 
ciples may behold his glory, as the consummation of their 
blessedness, John 17,24. And the apostle John says of all 
who received Christ, that they beheld “his glory as of the 
only begotten of the Father,” John 1,14. The idea here pre- 
sented is more fully unfolded in the beginning of the follow- 
ing chapter. 
Beholding his glory we are changed into the same image ; 


"4g II. CORINTHIANS 8, 18. 


τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεϑα, we are transformed into the 
same image. The verb is commonly construed with εἰς, 
into, or κατά, after, but sometimes, as here, with the simple 
accusative. Zhe same image, that is, the same which we are 
by the Spirit enabled to behold. ‘ Beholding we are trans- 
formed ;’ there is a causal relation between the one and the 
other. This is a truth everywhere recognized in the word 
of God. While, on the one hand, it is taught that the natu- 
ral man cannot see the things of the Spirit, because they are 
spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2,14, and that this blindness is 
the cause of alienation and pollution, Eph. 4,18; on the other 
hand, it is no less clearly taught that knowledge is the 
source of holiness, Eph. 5, 9; that spiritual discernment 
implies and produces congeniality. We shall be like Christ, 
because we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3,2. The conformi- 
ty to the image of Christ, as it arises from beholding his glory, 
must of course begin here. It is the vision of that glory, al- 
though only as in a glass, which has this transforming power. 
As the vision is imperfect, so the transformation is imperfect ; 
when the vision is perfect, the conformity will be perfect. 
Rom. 8, 29. 1 John 3, 2. Only they are Christians, who are 
like Christ. The conformity of which the apostle speaks, al- 
though it is spiritual, as here presented, is not confined to the 
soul, Of the body it is said, since we have borne the image 
of the earthy, we shall bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor. 
15, 49. Phil. 3,21. rom glory to glory. This may mean 
that the transformation proceeds from glory (i. 6. from the 
gory of Christ as apprehended by us), and results in glory. 

his explanation is adopted by the Greek fathers, Or the ex- 
pression indicates progression from one stage of glory to 
another, Comp. Ps. 84, 7, “They go from strength to 
strength.” This is the common and most natural interpre- 
tation. ‘The transformation is carried forward without inter- 
mission, from the first scarce discernible resemblance, to full 
conformity to the image of Christ, both as to soul and body. 
As by the Spirit of the Lord. As, i. e. as might be expected 
from such an agent, It is a work which corresponds to the 
nature of its author. Sy; the preposition is ἀπό, from, as 
indicating the source whence this glorious effect flows. Zhe 
So be of the Lord. The Greek is κυρίου πνεύματος, which the 

ulgate renders Domini Spiritu, an explanation which is 
adopted by Augustin, Calvin and many others, as well as by 
vur translators. But this inverts the order of the words, and 


as 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 18. 79 


is the more unnatural here because in the immediately pre- 
ceding verse the apostle had said τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, Spirit of the 
Lord ; he would therefore hardly express the same idea in the 
same connection by κυρίου πνεύματος. Others render the words 
the Lord Spirit, i. 6. the Spirit who is Lord. We have in the 
Old Testament and in the apocalypse the familiar phrase, “ the 
Lord God ;” but this is only the translation of o-p}xy mim Je- 
hoyah Elohim, Jehovah who is God, which the Septuagint ren- 
der κύριος ὁ ϑεός, the Vulgate Dominus Deus, and the English, 
“Lord God.” More analogous to the passage in the text is the 
Hebrew ninz, %:78, which the Septuagint render κύριος κύριος, 
the Vulgate Dominus Deus, and the English Lord God. In 
Joshua 22, 22, we have the unusual combination, mrh> ops ἘΝῚ 
Septuagint, 6 ϑεὸς ϑεὸς κύριός ἐστι; and immediately after 6 
ϑεὸς Jeos; Vulgate, Fortissimus Deus Dominus; the English, 
“'The Lorp God of gods.” As then in Hebrew njn> p78, in 
Greek κύριος κύριος (or κύριος ὃ Jeds), in Latin, Dominus Deus, 
and in English, Lord God, all meaning God who is Lord, so 
κύριος πνεῦμα may mean the Spirit who is Lord, i.e. the divine 
Spirit. ‘This is the explanation adopted by Chrysostom, The- 
odoret and some of the moderns, in accordance with the in- 
terpretation which they give of the first clause of v. 17, which, 
as stated above, they understand to mean, the Spirit is Lord, 
πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐπιστρέφων, πρὸς Κύριον ἐπιστρέφεις κύριος yap τὸ 
Πνεῦμα, καὶ ὁμόϑρονον, ὁμοπροσκύνητον καὶ ὁμοούσιον Πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, 
But as in νυν. 17 Paul does not say the Spirit is the Lord, bu 

on the contrary that the Lord is the Spirit, so it would be 
unnatural to make him here say we are transformed by the 
Spirit who is the Lord. If Lord is the subject in the one 
case, it must be in the other. According to others, the phrase 
in question should be rendered Lord of the Spirit, i. 6, Christ, 
who may be said to be Lord of the Spirit, in a sense analogous 
to that in which God is said to be the God of Christ. ‘That 
is, as God sent Christ, and was revealed by him, so Christ 
sends the Spirit and is revealed by him. This is the interpre- 
tation of billroth, Olshausen, Meyer and others. But the 
“Lord of the Spirit” is an expression without any scriptural 
authority or analogy. It is only of the incarnate Son οἵ God 
that the Father is said to be his God. There is no grammati- 
eal necessity for this interpretation, and it does not accord 
with v.17. Luther, Beza and others render the phrase ἀπὸ 
κυρίου πνεύματος, the Lord who is the Spirit. In favour of this 
interpretation is, first, the analogy of such expressions as ἁπὸ 

ΕῚ 


80 Il. CORINTHIANS 4. 


ϑεοῦ πατρός, from God who is Father, Gal. 1,3; and secondly, 
the authority of v.17. There the apostle had said, ‘The Lord 
is the Spirit,’ and here he says, the transforming power by 
which we are made like Christ flows from ‘the Lord who is 
the Spirit’ The former passage determines the meaning of 
the latter. The Lord who is the Spirit means, the Lord who 
is one with the Spirit, the same in substance, equal m power 
and glory; who 15 where the Spirit is, and does what the 
Spirit does. 


CHAPTER IV. 


In vs, 1-6 the apostle resumes the theme of 3, 12, viz. the open and faithful 
manner in which he preached the gospel. In vs. 7-15 he shows that his 
own personal insufficiency and suffering served to manifest more clearly 
the power of God, who rendered such a feeble instrument the means of 
producing so great effects. Therefore, vs. 16-18, he was not discour- 
aged or faint-hearted, but exultingly looked above the things seen to 
those unseen. 


As Paul had been made a minister of the new covenant, in- 
trusted with the ministration of righteousness and life, he 
acted as became his high commission. He was neither timid 
nor deceitful. He doubted not the truth, the power, or the 
success of the gospel which he preached; nor did he in any 
way corrupt or conceal the truth, but by its open proclama- 
tion commended himself to every man’s conscience, ys, 1. 2. 
If, notwithstanding this clear exhibition of the truth, the gos- 
pel still remained hid, that could only be accounted for by 
the god of this world blinding the eyes of men. Nothing 
short of this can account for the fact; for, says the apostle, we 
preach Christ and not ourselves, and Christ is the image of 
God. In him there is a revelation of the glory of God to 
which there is nothing analogous but the original creation of 
light out of darkness, vs, 3-6. ‘This treasure, however, is in 
earthen vessels, The gospel is the revelation of God. It is 
to do for the world what the creation of light did for the cha- 
otic earth. But we ministers are to have none of the glory 
of the work. We are nothing. The whole power is of God; 


a κο ἃ 


-΄ ἐξ’ ee Oe «ΣΝ» ων" 


II. CORINTHIANS 4,1, 81 


who so orders events as to make his power apparent. I am 
so perplexed, persecuted, down-trodden and exposed to death, 
as to render it evident that a divine power is exercised in my 
preservation and continued efficiency. My continuing to live 
and labour with success is a proof that Jesus lives. This he 
tells the Corinthians is for their benefit. vs. 7-12. Having the 
same faith that David had, he spoke with equal confidence, 
assured that God, who raised up Christ, would not only pre- 
serve him while in this world, but also raise him hereafter 
from the dead. As all Paul endured and did was for the 
benefit of the Church, thanks would be rendered by the peo- 
ple of God for his preservation and success, vs. 13-15. There- 
fore, adds this great apostle, I do not faint; although my out- 
ward man perishes, my inward man is renewed day by day; 
for I know that my present afflictions are not only temporary, 
but that they are to be succeeded by an eternal weight of 
glory, vs. 16-18. 


1. Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we 
have received mercy, we faint not. : 


Therefore, i. e. on this account, This is explained by what 
follows; seeing we have this ministry, that is, because we 
have it. Inthe former chapter he had proclaimed himself a 
minister of the new covenant, not of the letter, but of the 
spirit, 3, 6; a ministry far more glorious than that of the law, 
inasmuch as the law could only condemn, whereas the gospel 
conveys righteousness and life. The possession of such an of- 
fice he assigns as the reason why he does not faint ; οὐκ éxxa- 
κοῦμεν, we do not turn out bad, or prove recreant. That is, 
we do not fail in the discharge of duty, either through weari- 
ness or cowardice. As we have received mercy. The position 
of these words in the text admits of their being connected 
either with what precedes or with what follows. In the for- 
mer case, the sense is, having through the mercy of God ob- 
tained this ministry; in the latter, the meaning would be, as 
we have obtained mercy we faint not. The former is almost 
universally preferred, both because his not fainting is referred 
to his having so glorious an office, and because he so often re- 
fers to his call to the apostleship as a signal manifestation of 
the mercy and grace of God. Rom, 15, 15.16. 1 Cor. 15, 
9.10. Eph.3,8. ‘Having through the mercy of God ob- 
tained such a ministry, we faint not.’ | 


- 82 Il. CORINTHIANS 4, 2. 


2. But have renounced the hidden things of dis- 
honesty, not walking in craftmess, nor handling the 
word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the 
truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience 
in the sight of God. 


But, ἀλλά, on the contrary, 1. e. so far from proving recre- 
ant to his duty as a minister of the new covenant he acted in 
the manner set forth in this verse. The apostle in the de- 
scription which he here gives of his official conduct, evidently 
intends to describe the false teachers in Corinth. What he de- 
nies of himself he impliedly affirms of them. first, Paul says, 
we have renounced, declared off from, the hidden things of dis- 
honesty, τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης. The word αἰσχύνη (from αἰσχρός, 
ugly), means either shame as a feeling, or the cause of shame, 
any thing disgraceful or scandalous. The above phrase there- 
fore may mean either those things which men conceal, or do in 
secret, because they are ashamed of them, or, secret scandals or 
‘crimes, It may be taken in a general sense, as including any 
course of conduct which men conceal from fear of being dis- 
graced; or in a specific sense for secret immoralities, or for 
secret machinations and maneeuvres. The last is probably the 
true view, because the emphasis is rather on secret than shame. 
It was secrecy or concealment, the opposite of openness and 
honest frankness, that the apostle charges on his opponents. 
In the preceding context he had spoken of his openness of 
speech and conduct, and in the latter part of this verse he 
speaks of the manifestation of the truth, i. e. of its open proc- 
lamation. What therefore he says he renounced, that which 
he represents as characteristic of false teachers, is the want of 
openness, adopting secret methods of accomplishing their 
ends, which they would be ashamed to avow openly; puden- 
das latebras, as Beza says, minime convenientes tis, qui tante 
dignitatis ministerium tractant. Not walking in craftiness, 
this is an amplification of what precedes, A πανοῦργος is a 
man who can do every thing, and is willing to do any thing to 
accomplish his ends; and hence πανουργία includes the ως 
of shrewdness or acuteness in seeing how things can be done, 
and unscrupulousness as to the character of the means to be 
employed. It is the quality manifested by Satan when he be- 
guiled Eve, 2 Cor. 11,3; which the Jews exhibited when 
they endeavoured to entrap our Lord, Luke 20, 23; and 


Il. CORINTHIANS 4, 3. 83 


which false teachers are wont to exercise when they would 
seduce the unwary into heresy. Eph. 4,14. All such cunning, 
all such sly and secret ways of accomplishing his purposes Paul 
renounced. Nor handling the word of God deceitfully. The 
word δολόω means not only to deceive, but also to falsify. The 
latter is its meaning here. Not falsifying or corrupting the 
word of God, i. e. not adulterating it with the doctrines or 
traditions of men. Comp. 2,17. The gospel which Paul 
rane was the word of God; something divinely revealed, 

aving therefore a divine, and not merely human authority. 
The apostles always thus speak with the consciousness of be- 
ing the mouth of God or organs of the Spirit, so that we can- 
not deny their inspiration without denying not only their au- 
thority but their integrity. But by the manifestation of the 
truth. This stands opposed to the preceding clauses. In- 
stead of availing ourselves of secret and cunning arts, and 
corrupting the word of God, we declared it openly and pure- 
ly. The truth, therefore, here is not moral truth or integrity, 
nor truth in general, but revealed truth, i. e. the word of God. 
Commending ourselves to every man’s conscience. Paul’s op- 
ponents endeavoured to recommend themselves and to secure 
the confidence of others by cunning, and by corrupting the 

ospel; but he relied simply on the manifestation of the truth. 

e knew that the truth had such a self-evidencing power that 
even where it was rejegted and hated it commended itself to 
the conscience as true.} And those ministers who are humble 
and sincere, who are not wise in their own conceit, but simply 
declare the truth as God has revealed it, commend themselves 
to the consciences of men. That is, they secure the testimony 
of the conscience even of wicked men in their favour. Jn the 
sight of God, that is, he acted thus in the sight of God. 
This is an assertion of the purity of the motives which gov- 
erned his official conduct. He acted asin the sight of that 
God before whose eye nothing unholy or selfish could stand. 
‘The assertion of conscious integrity is not self-praise. 


3. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that 
are lost. 


Although the gos elis thus glorious in itself, and although 
it was clearly set orth, yet to some it remained hid, That is, 
its true character and excellence as a revelation from God and 
of God was not apprehended or recognized. The reason or 


"84 Il. CORINTHIANS 4, 4. 


eause of this fact was not to be sought either in the nature of 
the gospel, or in the mode of its exhibition, but in the state 
and character of those who rejected it. The sun does not 
cease to be the sun although the blind do not see it. And if 
any man cannot see the sun on a clear day at noon, he must 
be blind. So Paul does not hesitate to say that if any man 
does not receive the gospel when clearly presented, he is lost, 
If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, ἐν τοῖς 
ἀπολλυμένοις, among, or before them who are lost. See 1 Cor, 
1, 18, where it is said that the gospel is foolishness to them 
that perish. Ze lost are those who are in a state of perdition 
and who are certain (if they continue to reject the gospel) to 
perish forever, Nothing can be plainer than the doctrine of 
this passage. A man’s faith is not a matter of indifference. 
He cannot be an atheist and yet be saved. He cannot reject 
the gospel and yet go to heaven when he dies. This is not an 


arbitrary decision. ‘There is and must be an adequate ground — 


for it. Atheism implies spiritual death, the absence of all that 
constitutes the true life of the soul, of all its highest and best 
aspirations, instincts and feelings. The rejection of the gospel 
is as clear a proof of moral depravity, as inability to see the 
light of the sun at noon is a proof of blindness. Such is the 
teaching of the Bible, and such has ever been the faith of the 
church. Men of the world cry out against this doctrine. 
They insist that a man is not accountable for his opinions. 
He is, however, accountable for the character by which those 
opinions are determined. If he has such a character, such an 
inward moral state, as permits and decides him to believe that 
there is no God, that murder, adultery, theft and violence are 
right and good, then that inward state which constitutes his 
character, and for which he is responsible, (according to the 
intuitive perception and universal judgment of men,) is repro- 
bate. A good infidel is, according to the Bible, as much a 
contradiction as good wickedness or sweet bitterness. It is 
not for nothing that infinite truth and love, in the person of 
our Lord, said, “ He that believeth not shall be damned.” 


4. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the 
minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the 
glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, 
should shine unto them. 


- 


a a aii ὦ - ΑΜ δ, ἡ“... 


II. CORINTHIANS 4, 4. 85 


In this verse the apostle ραν να the reason why those who 
are lost do not see the truth and excellence of the gospel. It 
is that the god of this world hath blinded their minds. Jn 
whom (ἐν οἷς). The relative is used here as rt ἄρρ a cause 
or reason. ‘Our gospel is hid to them who are lost, because 
in them, &c. See 3,6. Zhe god of this world, i. e. Satan, 
who is called the god of this world because of the power 
which he exercises over the men of the world, and because of 
the servile obedience which they render to him. They are 
taken captive by him at his will. 2 Tim. 2, 26. It is not 
necessary in order that men should serve Satan, and even 
worship him, that they should intend to do so, or even that 
they should know that such a being exists. 1 Cor. 10,20. It 
is enough that he actually controls them, and that they fulfil 
his purposes as implicitly as the good fulfil the will of God, 
Not to serve God, is to serve Satan. There is no help for it. 
If Jehovah be not our God, Satan is. He is therefore called 
the prince of this world. John 12,31. 14,30. Comp, Matt. 
4. 8,9. Eph. 2,2. 6,12. This was one of the designations 
which the Rabbins applied to Satan. The true God, they said, 
is Deus primus, Satan, Deus secundus. Or as old Calovius 
said, Diabolus est simia Dei. As the Arians argued from the 
fact that Satan is called god of this world, that Christ’s 
being called God is no proof of his true divinity; and as the 
Manicheans quoted the passage in favour of their doctrine of 
two eternal principles, the one good and the other evil, 
many of the fathers, including even Chrysostom and Augus- 
tine, in violation of its obvious construction, make it to mean, 
“God hath blinded the minds of this world, i. 6. of unbeliev- 
ers.” On which Calvin remarks, We see how far the spirit of 
controversy can lead men in perverting Scripture. The word 
god may be used figuratively as well as literally. That we 
say mammon is the god of the world, or that Paul said of cer- 
tain men, “their belly is their god,” does not prove that call- 
ing Jehovah God is no assertion of his divinity. And as to 
the Manichean argument, unless it can be shown that when 
Baal is called god of the Syrians, eternity and self-existence 
are ascribed to him, it cannot be inferred that these attributes 
belong to Satan because he is called the god of this world. 
Satan is said to blind the minds of those that believe not ; that 
is, he exerts such an influence over them as prevents their ap- 
prehending the glory of the gospel. This control of Satan 
over the human mind, although so effectual, is analogous to 


86 Il. CORINTHIANS 4, 4& 


the influence of one created intellect over another in other 
cases, and therefore is perfectly consistent with free agency 
and responsibility. It should, however, make us feel our dan- 
ger and need of divine assistance, seeing that we have to con- 
tend not only against the influence of evil men, but against 
the far more powerful influence of the rulers of darkness; the 
pantocrators of this world. Eph. 6,12. The grammatical 
construction of this clause is somewhat doubtful. The words 
are ἐν οἷς ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων. The common ex- 
planation makes the genitive, τῶν ἀπίστων, virtually in apposi- 
tion with ἐν οἷς, ‘In whom, i. 6. in unbelievers, he had blind- 
ed the minds.’ The simple meaning then is, ‘The gospel is 
hid to them who are lost, because Satan hath blinded their 
eyes. The Jost and the unbelieving are identical. According 
to this view unbelief is the effect of the blinding. The same 
idea is expressed if, according to Fritzsche and Billroth, τῶν 
ἀπίστων be taken proleptically. ‘Whose minds Satan hath 
blinded so that they believe not... Comp. 1 Thess. 3, 13, “Τὸ 
establish your hearts unblamable,” i. e. so that they may be 
unblamable; and Phil. 3, 21, (according to the corrected 
text,) “changed like,” 1. 6. changed so as to be like. Accord- 
ing to Meyer this would require the accusative, τὰ νοήματα 
ἄπιστα, as the genitive of adjectives taken substantively is 
never thus proleptically used. His explanation is, ‘ Blinding 
the eyes of unbelievers is the business of Satan, and this he 
has done in them who are lost.? According to this view, 
blindness does not precede, but follows unbelief. Those who 
will not believe, Satan blinds so that they cannot see. Comp. 
Rom, 1, 21, “ Their foolish heart was darkened.” Their inex- 
cusable folly was the ground of their judicial blindness. The 
doctrine thus taught is one clearly recognized in Scripture. 
Those who resist the truth, God gives up to a reprobate mind. 
Rom. 1, 24.28. The logical connection, however, is here op- 
posed to this interpretation. Paul had said that the gospel 
was hid to the lost. This he accounts for by saying that Sa- 
tan had blinded their minds, The blindness therefore pre- 
cedes the unbelief and is the cause of it. 

Lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the 
image of God, should shine unto them. 'This is both the de- 
sign and effect of the blindness spoken of. Satan intends by 
the darkness which he spreads over the minds of men, to pre- 
vent their seeing the glory of Christ. Lest the light, φωτισμός, 
a word which does not occur in common Greek, but is used 


II. CORINTHIANS 4, 5. 87 


in the Septuagint, Ps. 44, 3, in the phrase rendered, “in the 
light of thy countenance,” and Ps. 78, 14, “He led them all 
night with a light of fire.’ The word therefore signifies the 
brightness emitted by a radiant body. Of the glorious go 

of Christ, literally, the gospel of the ylory of Christ, i. e. that 
gospel which reveals the glory of Christ. The word δόξης, 
glory, is not to be taken as a merely qualifying genitive of 
εὐαγγελίον, gospel. It isthe genitive of the object. The glory 
of Christ is the sum of all the divine and human excellence 
which is centred in his person, and makes him the radiant 
point in the universe, the clearest manifestation of God to his 
creatures, the object of supreme admiration, adoration and 
love, to all intelligent beings, and especially to his saints. To 
see this glory is to be saved; for we are thereby transformed 
into his likeness from glory to glory, 3,18. Therefore it is 
that Satan, the great adversary, directs all his energy to pre- 
vent men becoming the subjects of that illumination of which 
the gospel, as the revelation of the glory of Christ, is the 
source. Who is the image 4 God, i. 6. who being God rep- 
resents God, so that he who hath seen the Son hath seen the 
Father also. John 14,9. 12,45. Christ, as to his divine na- 
ture, or as the Logos, is declared to be the brightness of the 
Father’s glory, Heb. 1, 3, to be in the form of God and equal 
with God, Phil. 2,6, and perhaps also Col. 1,15; but here it 
is the incarnate Logos, the exalted Son of God clothed in our 
nature, who is declared to be the image of God, because in him 
dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col. 2, 9. 


5. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus 
the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. 


The connection indicated by the particle for is with the 
main idea of the preceding verse. ‘Our gospel,’ says Paul, 
‘is the gospel of the glory of Christ, for we do not preach 
ourselves, but him.’ To preach one’s self is to make self the 
end of preaching ; that is, preaching with the design to at- 
tract to ourselves the admiration, the confidence or homage 
of men. This Paul declares he did not do, but he preached 
Christ Jesus the Lord. His object in preaching was to bring 
men to recognize Jesus the son of Mary as Christ, 1, e. as him 
whom Moses and the prophets designated as the Messiah, 
and consequently that this Jesus was, had done, is doing, and 
would hereafter do, all that had been asserted or predicted of 


88 II. CORINTHIANS 4, 6. 


the Messiah; and further that he is Lorp in that sense in 
which every tongue in heaven, and on earth, and under the 
earth shall confess that he is Lord. The great end of Paul’s 
peooebine, therefore, was to bring men to receive and ac- 

nowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and as the su- 
preme Lord, the maker of heaven and earth. This is the 
only proper end of preaching. It is the only way by which 
men can be made either virtuous or religious. It is the only 


way in which either the true interests of society or the salva-, 


tion of souls can be secured, To make the end of preaching 
the inculcation of virtue, to render men honest, sober, benevo- 
lent and faithful, is part and parcel of that wisdom of the 
world that is foolishness with God. It is attempting to raise 
fruit without trees. When a man is brought to recognize 
Jesus Christ as Lord, and to love and worship him as such, 
then he becomes like Christ. What more can the moralist 
want? Paul cared little for the clamour of the Greeks that he. 
should preach wisdom and virtue. He knew that by preach- 
ing Christ he was adopting the only means by which men can 
be made wise and virtuous here and blessed hereafter. 

And ourselves your servants (slaves) for Jesus’ sake. 
Paul presented Christ as Lord; himself as a servant. A 
servant is one who labours, not for himself, but for another. 
Paul did not labour for himself, but for the Corinthians. Jor 
Jesus? sake, The motive which influenced him to devote him- 
self to the service of the Corinthians was the love of Christ. 
Here again the wisdom of the world would say the proper 
motive would be a desire for their good. Paul always puts 
God before man. A regard for the glory of Christ is a far 
higher motive than regard for the good of men; and the for- 
mer is the only true source of the latter. The ideal of a 
Christian minister, as presented in this pregnant passage, is, 
that he is a preacher of Christ, and a servant of the church, 
governed and animated by the love of Jesus. 


6. For God, who commanded the light to shine out 
of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the 
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face 
of Jesus Christ. 3 


There are two different views taken of the meaning of this 
verse. First, it may be understood to assign the reason why 


| 
᾿ 
7 
; 
; 
q 
; 
| 


11. CORINTHIANS 4, 6. 89 


Paul was the servant of the Corinthians. He devoted himself 
to their service, because God had revealed to him the knowl- 
edge of Christ, in order that he might communicate that 
knowledge to others. According to this view the connection 
is with the last clause of v.5. “I am your servant, ὅτι, de- 
cause,” &c.; “in our hearts,’ means in Paul’s heart; and 
πρὸς φωτισμόν (for the light) is equivalent to πρὸς τὸ φωτίζειν, 
to diffuse the light. Second, it may be understood to state 
the reason why Paul preached Christ. ‘ We preach not our- 
selves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, ὅτι, because in him is re- 
vealed the glory of God’ In this case the connection is with 
the first clause of vy. 5, and not with the last; “in our hearts” 
means in the hearts of believers; and πρὸς φωτισμόν (for light) 
means, as our version expresses it, to give us the light. The 
end or design of God’s shining into our hearts is that we 
should apprehend the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 
The latter of these interpretations is adopted by Calvin, the 
former by Luther and by almost all the modern commenta- 
tors. With regard to the former it must be admitted that 
the sense is good and consistent with the meaning of the 
words. It accords also with Gal. 1, 16, where the apostle 
says that God had revealed his Son in him that he might 
preach him among the Gentiles. The following considera- 
tions, however, are in favour of the other view of the passage. 
1. The connection is better. The main idea of the context is 
that Paul preached Christ, and therefore it is more natural to 
understand him to give the reason for so doing, than why he 
served the Corinthians, which is a subordinate matter. 2. 
The phrase “in our hearts” is much more naturally under- 
stood to mean “in the hearts of believers” than in Paul’s own 
heart. It is indeed possible that here, as in 3, 2, the plural 
hearts) may be used in reference to the apostle himself. 

till this is admissible only when the context requires it. Had 
Paul meant himself he would probably have said “in our 
heart,” as in the parallel passage in Galatians 1, 16 he says, ἐν 
ἐμοί, in me. To explain the plural form here by assuming 
that Paul means himself and Timothy is contrary to his uni- 
form habit of speaking for himself. His epistles are his and 
not Timothy’s. 3. The former interpretation supposes φωτισ- 
pos to have a different meaning here from what it has in v. 4. 
There it means light, here it is made to mean the act of com- 
municating light. But if φωτισμὸς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου means the 
light which flows from the gospel (or the gospel itself as lumi- 


90 11. CORINTHIANS 4, 6. 


nous), then φωτισμός τῆς γνώσεως means the light of which the 
knowledge of Christ is the source, (or that knowledge as 
light.) In v. 4, it is said that Satan hath blinded the eyes of 
unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of 
the glory of Christ, Here it is said that God has enlightened 
us so that we do see it. In Test. XII. Patr. p. 578, it is said, 
τὸ φῶς TOD κόσμου, TO δοϑὲν ἐν ὑμῖν πρὸς φωτισμὸν πάντος ἀνϑρώπου, 
the light of the world deposited in you, for the (subjective) ἐΐ- 
lumination of every man. 4. It is an additional reason in fa- 
vour of this interpretation that it suits the antithesis between 
vs. 4 and 6. The gospel is hid to one class of men, but God 
has opened the eyes of another class to see its glory. Here, 
as elsewhere, particularly in 1 Cor. 2, 14, the apostle recog- 
nizes a twofold illumination, the one external by the word, to 
which Satan renders unbelievers blind; and the other internal 


by the Spirit, whereby we are enabled to see the glory which 


is objectively revealed, 

The literal translation of this passage is, ‘God who com- 
manded the light to shine out of darkness, who shined into 
our hearts” Something must be supplied to complete the 
sense. We may read either ‘ Jt is God who commanded, &c., 
who shined into our hearts;’ or, ‘God who commanded the 
light to shine out of darkness, is he who shined, &c. There 
is an obvious reference to the work of creation as recorded in 
Genesis. Darkness originally brooded over chaos, until God 
said, Let there be light. So spiritual darkness broods over 
the minds of men, until God shines into their hearts. Shined 
into our hearts. The word λάμπω, means either, to be lumi- 
nous ; or as here, to illuminate, or cause light, as the analogy 
with the physical creation, just referred to, requires. The 
idea is not that God becomes luminous in us, but that he pro- 
duces light in our hearts. The design of this inward illumina- 
tion is expressed by the words πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως, Which, 
according to the former of the two interpretations mentioned 
above, means, to the shining abroad of the knowledge, ὅσο. 
He illuminates us that we may diffuse light, and thus illumi- 
nate others. According to the second interpretation, the 
meaning is, to give us the light of the knowledge. God illu- 
minates our minds so that we apprehend that light which 
flows from the knowledge of the glory of God, or which con- 
sists in that knowledge. By the glory of God is of course 
meant the divine majesty or excellence, which is the proper 
object of admiration and adoration. Jn the face of Jesus 


11, CORINTHIANS 4, 7. 91 


Christ ; the position of these words and the sense require 
that they should be connected with the word glory, notwith- 
standing the omission in the Greek of the connecting article 
(τῆς). It is the glory of God as revealed in Christ that men 
are by the illumination of the Holy Ghost enabled to see, 
There are two important truths involved in this statement. 
First, that God becomes in Christ the object of knowledge. 
The clearest revelation of the fact that God is, and what he is, 
is made in the person of Christ, so that those who refuse to 
see God in Christ lose all true knowledge of him, ‘No man 
hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in 
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” John 1, 18. 
** Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he 
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,’ Matt. 11, 27. 
** Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father,” 
1 John 2, 23. 2John 9. John 15, 23. Insignis locus, says 
Calvin, unde discimus Deum in sua altitudine non esse investi- 
annem (habitat enim lucem inaccessibilem), sed cognoscen- 

um quatenus se in Christo patefacit. Proinde quicquid extra 
Christum de Deo cognoscere appetunt homines, evanidum est, 
vagantur enim extra viam.... Nobis utilius est Deum con- 
spicere, qualis apparet in Filio unigenito, quam arcanam ejus 
essentiam investigare. The other truth here taught is, that 
this knowledge of God in Christ is not a mere matter of intel- 
lectual a “i ce oa which one man may communicate to an- 
other. It is a spiritual discernment, to be derived only from 
the se of God. God must shine into our hearts to give us 
this knowledge. Matt. 16,17. Gal. 1, 16. 1 Cor. 2, 10. 14. 
As the glory of God is spiritual, it must be spiritually dis- 
cerned, It is therefore easy to see why the Scriptures make 
true religion to consist in the knowledge of Christ, and why 
they make the denial of Christ, or want of faith in him as God 
manifest in the flesh, a soul-destroying sin. If Christ is God, 
to know him, is to know God; and to deny him, is to deny 


7. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, 
that the excellency of the power may be of God, and 
not of us. | 


This treasure is not the light or inward illumination spoken 
of in vy, 6, but the ministry of the gospel which Paul had re- 


"99 Il. CORINTHIANS 4, 8.9. 


ceived, and of which he had spoken in such exalted terms. It 
was a ministration of life, of power, and of glory. It revealed 
the grandest truths. It produced the most astonishing effects. 
It freed men from the condemnation and power of sin; it 
transformed them into the image of Christ; it delivered them 
from the power of the god of this world, and made them par- 
takers of eternal life. ‘These are effects which infinitely tran- 
scend all human power; and to render this fact conspicuous 
God had committed this treasure to earthen vessels. By 
earthen vessels is not meant frail bodies, but weak, suffering, 
perishing men, because it is not on account of the frailty of 
the body merely that ministers are so incompetent to produce 
the effects which flow from their ministrations. The apostle 
means to present the utter disproportion between the visible 
means and the effects produced, as proof that the real efficien- 
cy is not in man, but in God. The excellency of the power, 
i. e. the exceedingly great power, the wonderful efficiency of 
the gospel. May be, i.e. may be known and acknowledged 
to be, of God, i. e. to flow from him as its source, and not 
from us. Although what the apostle here says is true of all 
ministers, yet he had, no doubt, special reference to himself 
and to his own peculiar circumstances. He had magnified in 
the highest degree his office, but he himself was a poor, weak, 
persecuted, down-trodden man. This, he says, only renders 
the power of God the more conspicuous, not only in the suc- 
cess of my ministry, but in my preservation in the midst of 
dangers and sufferings which it seems impossible any man 
could either escape or bear. It is to show, on the one hand, 
how weak he is, how truly a mere earthen vessel, and, on the 
other, how great and manifest God’s power is, that in the fol- 
lowing verses he contrasts his trials and his deliverances. 


8. 9. (We are) troubled on every side, yet not dis- 
tressed ; (we are) perplexed, but not in despair; per- 
secuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not de- 
stroyed. 


Our version supplies the words we are, turning the parti- 
ciples into verbs, which, in the Greek, are all connected with 
the verb ἔχομεν (we have) in the preceding verse. ‘We, 
troubled, perplexed, persecuted and cast down, have, το, 
On every side, ἐν παντί, in every way and on every oveasion, 


ee ee 


11, CORINTHIANS 4, 10. 93 


These words belong to all the clauses, and not merely to the 
first. He was not only troubled, but perplexed and persecut- 
ed, ἐν παντί, in every way. Troubled, but not distressed, ϑλι- 
βόμενοι, GAN οὐ στενοχωρούμενοι, “pressed for room, but still 
having room.” The figure is that of a combatant sore pressed 
by his antagonist, but still finding room to turn himself. Per- 
plexed, but not in despair, constantly doubtful what way to 
take, and yet always finding some way open. The word ἀπο- 
péw (ἄπορός εἰμι) means to be at a loss what to say or do; éfa- 
πορέω is intensive, to be absolutely shut up so as to have no 
way or means available. Persecuted, but not forsaken ; that 
is, although God allowed men to persecute him, and seek to 
destroy his life and usefulness, yet he never deserted him or 
gave him up to the power of those who thus followed him. 
Cast down, but not duannysd, The allusion is still to a com- 
bat. Paul was not only persecuted or pursued by his enemies, 
but actually overtaken by them and cast to the ground, but 
not killed. When they seemed to have him in their power, 
God delivered him. is occurred so often, and in cases so 
extreme, as to make it manifest that the power of God was 
exerted on his behalf. No man from his own resources could 
have endured or escaped so much. There is in these verses 
an evident climax, which reaches its culmination in the next 
succeeding sentence. He compares himself to a combatant, 
first hardly pressed, then hemmed in, then pursued, then ac- 
tually cast down. This was not an occasional experience, but 
his life was like that of Christ, an uninterrupted succession of 
indignities and suffering. 


10. Always bearing about in the body the dying 
of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be 
made manifest in our body. 


We constantly illustrate in our person the sufferings of 
Christ. We are treated as he was treated; neglected, de- 
famed, despised, maltreated; oppressed with hunger and 
thirst, and constantly exposed to death. Always bearing 
about. Wherever he went, among Jews or Gentiles, in Jeru- 
salem and Ephesus; in all his journeyings, he met every- 
where, from all classes of persons, the same kind of treatment 
which Christ himself had received. Jn his body. This is 


᾿ said because the reference is to his external trials and suffer- 


o4 II. CORINTHIANS 4, 10. 


ings, and not to his internal anxieties and sorrows. The dy- 
ing of [the Lord] Jesus. The word κυρίου, of the Lord, 1s 

not found in the majority of the ancient manuscripts, and is 

therefore omitted in the later editions of the Greek Testa- 
ment. If this word be left out, the two clauses more nearly 
correspond. Zhe dying of Jesus then answers to the life of 

Jesus in the following clause. The word νέκρωσις is used 

figuratively in Rom. 4,19, ‘the deadness of Sarah’s womb.” 
Here it is to be taken literally. It means properly ὦ slaying 

or putting to death, and then violent death, or simply death. 

The death of Jesus does not mean death on his account; but 

such death as he suffered. Comp. 1,5. Though the reference 

is principally to the dying of Christ, and the climax begun in 

the preceding verse is here reached, yet his other sufferings 

are not to be excluded. ‘The mortification of Jesus,” says 

Calvin, “ includes every thing which rendered him (i. e. Paul) 

despicable before men.” Paul elsewhere refers to his con- 
stant exposure to death in terms as strong as those which he 

here uses. In Rom. 8, 36 he says, “ We are killed all the day 

long,” and 1 Cor, 15, 31, “I die daily.” Compare also 1 Cor, 

4,9. 2 Cor. 11,23. The death or sufferings of Christ were 

constantly, as it were, reproduced in the experience of the 

apost!e. In the use of another figure he expresses the same 

idea in Gal. 6,17. “1 bear in my body the marks of the 

Lord Jesus.” The scars which I bear in my body mark me as 

the soldier of Christ, and as belonging to him as my divine 

Master, and as suffering in his cause, 

That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our 
body. ‘This expresses the design of God in allowing Paul to 
be thus persecuted and involved in the constant danger of 
death. ‘The treasure of the gospel was committed not to an 
angel, but to Paul, an earthen vessel, and he was pressed, 
persecuted, cast down, and beset with deadly perils, in order 
that his preservation, his wonderful efficiency and astonishing 
success, should be a constant proof that Jesus lives, and not 
only exercises a providential care over his servants, delivering 
them out of all their perils, but also attends their labours with 
his own divine efficiency. Paul’s deliverances, and the effects 
of his preaching, made it menifest that Jesus lives. In Rom. 
15, 18 the apostle says, “I will not dare to speak of those 
things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the 
Gentiles obedient, by word and deed ;” and in Gal, 2, 8, “He 
that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the cir- 


II. CORINTHIANS 4, 11. 95 


eumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles.” 
As the life of every believer is a manifestation of the life of 
Christ, (for it is not we that live, but Christ liveth in us, Gal. 
2, 20,) so also was the apostolic life of Paul. As the life of 
Christ, however, is not only manifested in the spiritual life of 
his followers, and in the deliverance and success of his minis- 
ters, as it is not only made known in rescuing them from 
deadly perils, but is hereafter to be more conspicuously re- 
vealed in delivering them from death itself, it seems from v. 
14 that Paul includes the resurrection in the manifestation of 
the life of Jesus of which he here speaks. We die (daily, and 
at last, literally) in order that the life of Christ kas θὲ re- 
vealed. This passage is thus brought into unison with Rom. 
8, 17, “If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also 
glorified together;” and with 2 Tim. 2, 11, “If we be dead 
with him, we shall live with him.” See 1 Peter 4, 13. 14. 
Rom. 6, 8.9. John 14, 19, “ Because I live, ye shall live also.” 
The association is natural between deliverance from the dan- 

er of death, and the ultimate deliverance from death itself. 
The following verses show that this association actually exist- 
ed in the apostle’s mind, and that both were regarded as 
manifestations of the life of Christ, and therefore proofs that 
he still lives. Jn our body ; this does not mean simply in me, 
A special reference is made to the body, because Paul was 
oe Ba of bodily sufferings and death. 


11. For we which live are always delivered unto 
death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might 
be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 


This is a confirmation and explanation of what precedes. 
Paul constantly bore about the dying of Jesus, for he was al- 
bet delivered to death for Jesus’ sake. He was, as he says 
1 Cor. 4, 9, ὡς ἐπιϑανάτιος, as one condemned, and constantly 
expecting death. We which are alive ; ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες, we the 
living, i. e. although living, and therefore, it might seem, not 
the subjects of death. Death and life are opposed to each 
other, and yet in our case they are united. Though living we 
die daily. The words in this connection do not mean ‘as long 
as we live,’ or, ‘we who are alive,’ as in 1 Thess. 4, 17, where 
they designate the living as a class distinguished from the 
dead. They mark the peculiarity of Paul’s condition as living 
although constantly delivered to death, | 

5 


96 II. CORINTHIANS 4, 12. 18. 


That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our 
mortal flesh. ‘The only variation between this and the cor- | 
responding clause of the preceding verse is, that here the 
phrase in our mortal flesh is substituted for i our body. The 
word body does not of itself involve the idea of weakness and 
mortality, but the word flesh does. Hereafter we are to be 
clothed with bodies, but not with flesh and blood. The con- 
trast, therefore, between the power of the life of Christ, and 
the feebleness of the instrument or organ through which that 
life is revealed, is enhanced by saying it was manifested in our 
mortal flesh. In himself Paul was utter weakness; in Christ 
he could do and suffer all things. 


12. So then death worketh in us, but-life in you. 


This verse expresses the conclusion or the result of the 
preceding exhibitions. So then I have the suffering and you 
the benefit. I am constantly dying, but the life of Jesus 
manifested in me is operative for your good. The death and 
life here spoken of must be the same as in vs. 10.11. The 
death is Paul’s sufferings and dying; the life is not his physi- 
cal life and activity by which the life of Christ is represented, 
but the divine life and efficiency of Jesus. Death and life are 
personified, The one is represented as operative in Paul; the 
other in the Corinthians. The divine power manifested in the 
support of the apostle, and in rendering his labours so success- 
ful, was not primarily and principally for his benefit, but for 
the benefit of those to whom he preached, It was, however, 
to him and to them a consolation that his labours were not in 
vain, There is no analogy between this passage and 1 Cor. 4, 
8-10, where the apostle in a tone of irony contrasts his own 
condition with that of the Corinthians, ‘* Now ye are full, now 
ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us,” &c., and 
therefore there is no propriety in understanding the apostle 
here to represent the Corinthians as living at their ease while 
he was persecuted and afflicted. According to this view, life 
here signifies a state of enjoyment and prosperity, and death 
the opposite. But it is plain from the connection that the 
life spoken of is “the life of Jesus” which was manifested in 

the apostle, the fruits of which the Corinthians enjoyed. 


13. We having the same spirit of faith, according 


II. CORINTHIANS 4, 13. 97 


as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken ; 
we also believe, and therefore speak. 


The afflictions and dangers to which the apostle was ex- 
posed, were adapted to discourage and even to drive him to 
despair. He, however, was not discouraged; but having the 
same faith which of old animated the Psalmist, he also, as Da- 
vid did, proclaimed his confidence in God. Our version omits 
the connecting particle, δέ, which expresses the contrast be- 
tween what follows and what precedes. ‘We are delivered 
unto death, dut having, &c. The same spirit of faith. “The 
spirit of faith” may be a periphrase for faith itself; or the 
word spirit may refer to the human spirit, and the whole mean 
‘having the same believing spirit.’ It is more in accordance 
with scriptural usage, and especially with Paul’s manner, to 
make spirit refer to the Holy Spirit, who is so often designat- 
ed from the effects which he produces. He is called the 
Spirit of adoption, Rom. 8, 15; the Spirit of wisdom, Eph. 1, 
17; Spirit of grace, Heb. 10, 29; Spirit of glory, 1 Pet. 4, 14, 
The apostle means to say that the same blessed Spirit which 
was the author of faith in David he also possessed. Accord- 
ing as it is written, i. e. the same faith that is expressed in 
the passage where it is written, ‘I believed, therefore have I 
spoken,’ is is the language of David in Ps. 116,10. The 

mist was greatly afilicted ; the sorrows of death com- 
ene him, she ote of hell gat hold of him, but he did not 

espair. He called on the Lord, and he helped him. He de- 
livered his soul from death, his eyes from tears, and his feet 
from falling. David’s faith did not fail. He believed, and 
therefore, in the midst of his afilictions, he proclaimed his 
confidence and recounted the goodness of the Lord. Paul’s 
experience was the same. He also was sorely tried. He also 
retained his confidence, and continued to rely on the promises 
of God. The apostle follows the Septuagint in the passage 
quoted. The Hebrew expresses the same idea in a rather dif 
ferent form. “I believed for I speak.” In either way, speak- 
ing is represented as the effect and proof of faith. See ALEx- 
ANDER on the Psalms. 

We also believe, therefore we also speak. As Paul’s faith 
was the same, its effect was the same. The faith of David 
made him proclaim the fidelity and goodness of God. The 
faith of Paul made him, despite all the suffering it brought 
upon him, proclaim the gospel with full assurance of its truth 


98 II. CORINTHIANS 4 14. 


and of his own participation of its benefits, This clause, “‘we 
also believe,” depends on the participle at the beginning of 
the verse. ‘Having the Holy Spirit, the author of faith, we 
speak. The interpretation here given of this passage is the 
common one. Calvin and many other commentators take a 
very different view. They say that by the same faith is to be 
understood, not the same the Psalmist had, but the same that 
the Corinthians had. Paul, says Calvin, is to be understood 
as saying, ‘ Although there is a great difference between my 
circumstances and yours; although God deals gently with 
you and severely with me, yet, notwithstanding this difference, 
we have the same faith; and where the faith is the same, the 
inheritance is the same.’ But this supposes that the design 
of the preceding part of the chapter is to contrast the exter- 
nal condition of Paul with that of the Corinthians; and it 
supposes that by we is meant we Christians, whereas the apos- 
tle evidently means himself. ‘We are persecuted, cast down, 
and delivered to death, but we, having the same faith with 
David, do as he did. We retain our confidence and continue 
to confess and to proclaim the gospel.’ It is his own experi- 
ence and conduct, and not those of the Corinthians, that Paul 
is exhibiting. 


14. Knowing, that he which raised up the Lord 
Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present 
(us) with you. 


That this is to be understood of the literal resurrection, 
and not of a mere deliverance from dangers, is evident, 1. Be- 
cause wherever a figurative sense is preferred to the literal 
meaning of a word or proposition, the context or nature of 
the passage must justify or demand it. Such is not the case 
here. There is nothing to forbid, but every thing to favour 
the literal interpretation. 2. Because the figurative interpre- 
tation cannot be carried through without doing violence to 
the passage and to the analogy of Scripture. ‘To present us 
with you” cannot be made to mean, ‘to exhibit us with you 
as rescued from danger. 3. The figurative interpretation 
rests on false assumptions. It assumes that Paul confidently 
expected to survive the second coming of Christ, and there- 
fore could not say he expected to be raised from the dead. 
In this very connection, however, he says he longs to be ab- 


_ 


II. CORINTHIANS 4, 14. 99 


sent from the body and to be present with the Lord; as he 
said to the Philippians, at a later period of his career, that he 
had a desire to depart and to be with Christ. Again, it is 
said that according to the true reading of the passage, Paul 
says he knows we shall be raised up with (not dy) Christ, and 
therefore he cannot refer to the literal resurrection. But ad- 
mitting the reading to be as assumed, to be raised up with 
Christ does not mean to be raised contemporaneously with 
him, but in fellowship with him, and in virtue of union with 
him. This figurative interpretation, therefore, although at 
first adopted by Beza and advocated by many of the most dis- 
tinguished modern commentators, is generally and properly 
rejected. 

The apostle here indicates the ground of the confidence 
expressed in the preceding verse. He continued to speak, 
i. e. to preach the gospel, notwithstanding his persecutions, 
knowing, i. e. because he was sure that he and his fellow- 
believers should share in its glorious consummation. The 
word to know is often used in the sense of being convinced or 
sure of. Rom. 5,3. 1 Cor. 15,58. It is assumed as a fact 
which no Christian did or could doubt, that God had raised 
up Jesus from the dead. What Paul was fully persuaded of 
is, that God would raise us (i. e. him, for he is speaking of him- 
self) with or by Jesus. The majority of the ancient manu- 
scripts and versions here read σύν, with, instead of διά, by, and 
that reading is adopted in most critical editions, Both forms 
of ΠΝ occur in Scripture. Believers are said to be 
raised up by Christ and with Christ. Our Lord often says, 
4 1 will raise him up at the last day;” and in 1 Cor, 15, 21, 
the resurrection is said to be (διά) dy man, i. 6, by Christ. 
On the other hand, believers are said to be raised up with οἱ 
in him. 1 Cor. 15,22. Eph. 2,6. Col. 3, 3.4. 1 Thess. 5, 10. 
The two modes of statement are nearly coincident in meaning 
The believer is united to Christ, as a member of his body, and 
therefore a partaker of his life, It is in virtue of this union, 
or of this participation of life, which, the apostle expressly 
teaches, extends to the body as well as to the soul, Rom. 8, 
8-11. 1 Cor. 6, 13-20. 15, 21. 22, that our bodies are raised 
from the dead, It is therefore immaterial whether we say we 
are raised by him, i. 6. by the power of his life, or, we are 
raised with, i.e. in union with him, and in virtue of that 
union. As our resurrection is due to this community of life, 


our bodies shall be like his glorious body. Phil. 3,21. And 


100 1. CORINTHIANS 4, 14. 


this congeniality and conformity are included in the idea 
which is expressed by saying, we shall be raised up with him, 
i. 6. in his fellowship and likeness. The resurrection, there- 
fore, was the one great, all-absorbing object of anticipation 
and desire to the early Christians, and should be to us. It is 
then that we shall be introduced into the glorious liberty of 
the sons of God; it is then that the work of redemption shall 
be consummated, and Christ be admired in his saints. And 
present us together with you. To present, παρίστημι, is to 
cause to stand near or by, to offer to. We are required to 
present our members (Rom. 6, 13,) or our bodies (Rom. 12, 1,) 
unto God; Paul says he desired to present the Corinthians as 
a chaste virgin unto Christ, 11,2; God is said to have recon- 
ciled us to present us holy in his sight, Col. 1, 22; and Jude 
(v. 24) gives thanks to him who is able to present us faultless 
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. This is 


the idea here. It is true that in the following chapter it is 


said that we must all appear before the judgment seat of 
Christ, whence many suppose that the apostle means here that 
having been raised from the dead, believers shall be presented 
before the tribunal of the final judge. But the idea of judg- 
ment is foreign from the connection. It is a fearful thing to 
stand before the judgment seat of Christ, even with the cer- 
tainty of acquittal. ‘The apostle is here exulting in the assur- 
ance that, however persecuted and down-trodden here, God, 
who had raised up Jesus, would raise him up and present him 
with all other believers before the presence of his glory with 
exceeding joy. This it was that sustained him, and has sus- 
tained so many others of the afflicted of God’s people, and 
given them a peace which passes all understanding. 

The resurrection of Christ here, as in other passages, is 
represented as the pledge of the resurrection of his people. 
“ He that raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your 
mortal bodies,” Rom. 8,11. “God hath both raised up the 
Lord, and will also raise us up by his own power,” 1 Cor. 6, 
14, “Christ is risen from the dead and become the first fruits 
of them that slept; for ...in Christ shall all be made alive,” 
15,19-22. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, 
even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with 
him,” 1 Thess. 4,14. See also John 11,25, Eph. 2,6. Col. 
2,12. In the view of the sacred writers, therefore, the glori- 
ous resurrection of believers is as certain as the resurrection 
of Christ, and that not simply because God who has raised up 


wae “ὦ ἃ 


11. CORINTHIANS 4, 15. 101 


Jesus has promised to raise his followers, but because of the 
union between him and them. They are in him in such a 
sense as to be partaxers of his life, so that his life of necessity 
secures theirs. If he lives, they shall live also. Now as the 
fact of Christ’s resurrection was no more doubted by the 
apostles, who had seen and heard and even handled bim after 
he rose from the dead, than their own existence, we may see 
how assured was their confidence of their own resurrection to 
eternal life. And as to us no event in the history of the world 
is better authenticated than the fact that Christ rose from the 
dead, we too have the same ground of assurance of the resur- 
rection of those who are Christ’s at his coming. Had we onl 
the faith of the apostle, we should have his constancy and his 
joy even in the midst of the greatest afflictions. 


15. For all things (are) for your sakes, that the 
abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of 
many redound to the glory of God. 


In the preceding verse Paul had expressed his confident 
hope of being delivered even from the grave and presented 
before God in glory with his Corinthian brethren, for all 
things are for your sakes. They were to be partakers of the 
salvation which he proclaimed and for which he suffered. All 
he did and all he suffered was for them. According to this 
interpretation the all things are limited to all things of which 
he had been speaking, viz. his sufferings, his constancy, and 
his deliverance. In 1 Cor. 3, 21, however, he says in a much 
more comprehensive sense, ‘All things are yours, whether 
things present or things to come. Hence some understand 
the expression with the same latitude in this passage: ‘I ex- 
pect to be presented with you, for all things are for your 
sakes.’ But this does not agree with the latter part of the 
verse. He evidently means all that he did, and suffered, and 
experienced. ‘They are for your sake, that (iva, in order that) 
the abundant grace or favour manifested to me, might, 
through the thanksgiving of many, i. e. through your grati- 
tude, called forth by your experience of the blessings flowing 
from my labour and sufferings, as well as from my deliverance, 
redound to the glory of God.’ This is the sense of the pas- 
Sage, according to the construction of the original, adopted 
by our translators. Paul says that the favour shown him re- 


~ 402 1. CORINTHIANS 4, 16. 


dounds the more to the glory of God, because others besides 
himself are led to give thanks for it. This supposes that in 
the Greek, διὰ τῶν πλειόνων, κιτ.λ. are to be connected with 
περισσεύσῃ, might abound through. 'Those words, however, 
may be connected with πλεονάσασα, the grace rendered abund- 
ant by many. This may mean either that the favour shown 
the apostle was the more abundant because so many interced- 
ed in his behalf. Comp. 1,11, and Phil. 1,19. “1 know that 
this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer.” Or the 
meaning may be, ‘The favour shown me, rendered abundant, 
or greatly multiplied, through the participation of many.’ In 
the one case, Paul says the grace was the greater because so 
many prayed for him; in the other, it was the greater because 
so many enjoyed the fruits of it. The passage admits of either 
of these constructions and explanations ; and whichever is pre- 
ferred the general idea is the same. The church is one. If 
one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 
If Paul was redeemed from his enemies, all the church gave 
thanks to God. A favour shown to him was a favour shown 
to all, and was thereby multiplied a thousand-fold and ren- 
dered a thousand-fold more prolific of thanksgiving unto God. 
Whichever construction be adopted, περισσεύσῃ is to be taken 
transitively, as in Eph. 1,8. 1 Thess. 3,12. ‘Grace causes 
thanksgiving to abound,’ 


16. For which cause we faint not ; but though our 
outward man perish, yet the inward (man) is renewed 


day by day. 


For which cause, that is, because we are sure of a glorious 
resurrection, and are satisfied that our present sufferings and 
labours will advance the glory of God. We fuint not, we do 
not become discouraged and give up the conflict. On the 
contrary, though his outward man, his whole physical consti- 
tution, perish, διαφϑείρεται, be utterly worn out and wasted 
away by constant suffering and labour, yet the inward man, 
the spiritual nature, is renewed, i. 6. receives new life and 
vigour, day by day. By ‘inward man’ is not meant simply 
the soul as distinguished from the body, but his higher nature 
—his soul as the subject of the divine life. Rom. 7, 22. 
Eph. 3, 16. Of no unholy man could it be said in the sense 
of the apostle that his inward man was daily renewed. It is 


Il. CORINTHIANS 4, 17. 103 


not of renewed supplies of animal spirits or of intellectual 
vigour that the apostle speaks, but of the renewal of spiritual 
strength to do and suffer, This constant renewal of strength 
is opposed to fainting. ‘ We faint not, but are renewed day 
by day, ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ. This is a Hebraism, Gen, 39, 10. 
Ps, 68, 19, familiar to our ears but foreign to Greek usage. 
The supplies of strength came without fail and as they were 
needed. 


17. For our light affliction, which is but for a mo- 
ment, worketh for us a far more exceeding (and) eter- 
nal weight of glory. 


This is the reason why we faint not. Our afflictions are 
light, they are momentary, and they secure eternal glory. 
Every thing depends upon the standard of judgment. 
Viewed absolutely, or in comparison with the sufferings of 
other men, Paul’s afflictions were exceedingly great. He 
was r, often without food or clothing; his body was weak 
and sickly ; he was homeless; he was beset by cruel enemies; 
he was repeatedly scourged, he was stoned, he was impris- 
oned, he was shipwrecked, robbed, and counted as the off 
scouring of the earth; he was beyond measure harassed by 
anxieties and cares, and by the opposition of false teachers, 
and the corruption of the churches which he had planted at 
such expense of time and labour. See 1 Cor. 4, 9-13, and 2 
Cor, 11, 23-29. These afflictions in themselves, and as they 
affected Paul’s consciousness, were exceedingly great; for he 
says himself he was pressed out of measure, above strength, 
so that he despaired even of life. 1,8. He did not regard 
these afflictions as trifles, nor did he bear them with stoical 
indifference. He felt their full force and pressure. When 
five times scourged by the Jews and thrice beaten with rods, 
his physical torture was as keen as that which any other man 
would have suffered under similar inflictions. He was not in- 
sensible to hunger, and thirst, and cold, and contempt, and 
ingratitude, His afflictions were not light in the sense of giv- 
ing little pain, The Bible does not teach, either by precept 
or example, that Christians are to bear pain as though it were — 
not pain, or bereavements as though they caused no sorrow. 
- Unless afflictions prove real sorrows, they will not produce the 
fruits of sorrow. It was only by bringing these sufferings 

5 


104 II. CORINTHIANS 4, 17. 


into comparison with eternal glory that they dwindled into 
insignificance. So also when the apostle says that his afllic- 
tions were for a moment, it is only when compared with eter- 
nity. They were not momentary so far as the present life 
was concerned, They lasted from his conversion to his mar- 
tyrdom. His Christian life was a protracted dying. But 
what is the longest life to everlasting ages? Less than a sin- 
gle second to threescore years. The third source of consola- 
tion to the apostle was that his afflictions would secure for 
him eternal glory, i.e. the eternal and inconceivable excel- 
lence and blessedness of heaven. This is all the words κατερ- 

dlerat ἡμῖν express. Afilictions are the cause of eternal glory, 
Kot the meritorious cause, but still the procuring cause. God 
has seen fit to reveal his purpose not only to reward with ex- 
ceeding joy the afilictions of his people, but to make those 
afflictions the means of working out that joy. This doctrine 
is taught in many passages of Scripture. Matt. 19,29. Rom. 
8,17. 2 Tim. 2, 12.13. 1 Pet.1,6. 4,13. Rev.7,14. It is 
not, however, suffering in itself considered which has this ef- 
fect; and therefore not all suffering; not self-inflicted suffer- 
ing, not punishment, but only such sufferings which are either 
endured for Christ’s sake, or which when imposed for the trial 
of our faith are sustained with a Christian spirit. We are, 
therefore, not to seek afflictions, but when God sends them 
we should rejoice in them as the divinely appointed means of 
securing for us an eternal weight of glory. Our Lord calls on 
those who were persecuted to rejoice and be exceeding glad, 
Matt. 5,12; so does the apostle Peter, 4,13; and Paul often 
asserts that he gloried or rejoiced in his afflictions. Phil. 2, 17. 
Col. 1, 24. 

The expression τὸ παραυτίκα ἐλαφρὸν τῆς ϑλίψεως, the mo- 
mentary lightness of affliction, exhibits the adverb (παραυτίκα) 
used as an adjective, and the adjective (ἐλαφρόν) used as a sub- 
stantive. Comp. 8, 8. 1 Cor. 1,25. Wetstein and other col- 
Jectors furnish abundant illustrations of this usage from the 
Greek writers. In this carefully balanced sentence, ἐλαφρόν, 
light, stands opposed to βάρος, weight, and παραυτίκα, momen- 
tary, to αἰώνιον, eternal. In Hebrew the same word signifies 
to be heavy, and to be glorious, and the literal meaning of the 
Hebrew word for glory is weight, which may have suggested 
the peculiar expression “weight of glory.” The words xa 
ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολήν, according to excess unto excess, in the ᾿ 
sense of exceeding exceedingly, (one of Paul’s struggles with 


II. CORINTHIANS 4, 1s. 105 


the impotency of language to express his conceptions,) may 
be taken as an adjective qualification of βάρος δόξης, weight of 
glory. This is the explanation adopted by our translators, 
who render the phrase, “far more exceeding, and eternal 
weight of glory.” There is, however, no καί (and) in the 
text. If this view be adopted, it would be better therefore 
to take “eternal weight of glory” as one idea. The eternal 
glory exceeds all limits. The words in question, however, 
may be connected adverbially with κατεργάζεται, as proposed 
by teas and De Wette. ‘Our light afflictions work exceed- 
ingly, 1, e. are beyond measure efficacious in securing or pro- 
Aueing an eternal weight of glory.’ 


18. While we look not at the things which are 
seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the 
things which are seen (are) temporal; but the things 
which are not seen (are) eternal. 


The participial clause with which this verse begins (μὴ 
σκοπούντων ἡμῶν) may have a causal force. ‘Our li ht afilic- 
tions are thus efficacious because we look not at the things 
which are temporal” This, however, is hardly true. The 
afflictions of Christians do not work out for them eternal 
glory, because their hearts are turned heavenward, It is 
therefore better to understand the apostle as simply express- 
ing the condition under which the effect spoken of in ν, 17 is 
produced, This is the idea expressed in our version by the 
word while. Afilictions have this salutary operation while 
i. 6. provided that) we look at the things which are eternal. 

his clause thus serves to designate the class of persons to 
whom even the severest afflictions are light, and for whom 
they secure eternal glory. It is not for the worldly, but for 
those whose hearts are set on things above. The word trans- 
lated look, cxoréw, is derived from σκοπός (scopus, scope), 
meaning the mark or goal on which the eye is fixed, as in 
Phil. 3, 14, κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω, 7. press toward the mark. 
Therefore looking here means making things unseen the goal 
on which our eyes are fixed, the end toward which the atten- 
tion, desires and efforts are directed. As is usual with the 
apostle, he states both what is not, and what is, the absorb- 
ing object of the believer's attention. Not the visible, but the 
invisible ible ; 1. 6. not the world and the things of the world, but 


106 11, CORINTHIANS 5. 


the things which pertain to that state which is to us now in- 
visible. The reason why the latter, and not the former class 
of objects do thus engross the believer, is that the things seen 
are temporal, or rather, temporary, lasting only for a time; 
whereas the things unseen are eternal. Few passages in 
Paul’s writings exhibit so clearly his inward exercises in the 
midst of sufferings and under the near prospect of death. He 
was, when he wrote what is here written, in great affliction. 
He felt that his life was in constant and imminent danger, and 
that even if delivered from the violence of his enemies, his 
strength was gradually wearing away under the uninterrupted 
trials to which he was subjected. Under these circumstances 
we see him exhibiting great sensibility to suffering and sor- 
row; a keen susceptibility in reference to the conduct and 
feelings of others towards him; a just appreciation of his dan- 
ger, and yet unshaken confidence in his ultimate triumph; a 
firm determination not to yield either to opposition or to suf 
fering, but to persevere in the faithful and energetic discharge 
of the duty which had brought on him all his trials, and a he- 
roic exultation in those very afflictions by which he was so 
sorely tried. He was sustained by the assurance that the life 
of Christ secured his life; that if Jesus rose, he should rise 
also; and by the firm conviction that the more he suffered for 
the sake of Christ, or in such a way as to honour his divine 
master, the more glorious he would be through all eternity, 
my caicls ἢ therefore, became to him not merely endurable, but 
a ground of exceeding joy. 


CHAPTER YV. 


The confidence expressed in the preceding chapter is justified by showing 
that the apostle was assured of a habitation in heaven, even if his earthly 
tabernacle should be destroyed, vs. 1-10. His object in what he had 
said of himself was not self-commendation. He laboured only for the 
good of the church, impelled by the love of Christ, whose ambassador 

e was, in exhorting men to be reconciled to God, vs. 11-21. 


The state of believers after death. Vs. 1-10. 


Paut did not faint in the midst of his sufferings, because he 
knew that even if his earthly house should be destroyed, he 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1. 107 


had a house in heaven—not like the present perishable taber- 
nacle, but one not made with hands, and eternal, v.1. He 
looked forward to the things unseen, because in his present 
tabernacle he groaned, desiring to enter his heavenly habita- 
tion. He longed to be unclothed that he might be clothed 
upon with his house which is from heaven, vs. 2-4. This con- 
fidence he owed to God, who had given him the Holy Spirit 
as a pledge of his salvation, v. 5. Having this indwelling of 
the Spirit he was always in good courage, knowing that as 
soon as he should be absent from the body, he would be pres- 
ent with the Lord, vs. 6-8. Therefore his great desire was to 
please him, before whose tribunal he and all other men were 
to appear to receive according to their works, vs. 9. 10. 


1. For we know that if our earthly house of (this) 
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, 
a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 


The connection between this passage and the preceding 
chapter is plain. Our light afflictions, Paul had said, wor 
out for us an eternal weight of glory, for we know that even 
if our earthly house perishes, we have an everlasting habita- 
tion in heaven. The general sense also of the whole of the 
following paragraph is clear, The apostle expresses the as- 
surance that a blessed state of existence awaited him after 
death. There is, however, no little difficulty in determining 
the precise meaning of the figurative language here employed. 
Few passages in Paul’s writings have awakened a deeper or 
more general interest, because it treats of the state of the soul 
after Seathi a subject about which every man feels the liveli- 
est concern, not only for himself, but in behalf of those dear 
to him. Where are those who sleep in Jesus before the resur- 
rection? What is the condition of a redeemed soul when it 
leaves the body? These are questions about which no Chris- 
tian can be indifferent. If Paul here answers those inquiries, 
the passage must have peculiar value to all the people of God. 
This, however, is the very point about which the greatest dif 
ficulty exists. There are three views taken of the passage; 
that is, three different answers are given to the question, 
What is that building into which the soul enters when the 

resent body is dissolved? 1. The first answer is, that the 
use not made with hands is heaven itself. 2. That it is the 


108 11. CORINTHIANS δ, 1. 


resurrection body. If this be the correct view, then the pas- 
sage throws no light on the state of the soul between death 
and the resurrection. It treats solely of what is to happen 
after Christ’s second coming. 3. The third opinion is, that 
the house into which the soul enters at death is, so to speak, an 
intermediate body; that is, a body prepared for it and adapt- 
ed to its condition during the state intermediate between 
death and the resurrection. This, however, is not a scriptu- 
ral doctrine. Many philosophers indeed teach that the soul 
can neither perceive nor act unless in connection with a body; 
nay, that an individual man is nothing but a revelation of the 
general principle of humanity in connection with a given cor- 
poreal organism, as a tree is the manifestation of the principle 
of vegetable life through a specific material organization. As 
therefore vegetable life is, or exists, only in connection with 
vegetable forms, so the soul exists only in connection with a 
body. ‘Thus Olshausen in his Commentary, 1 Cor. 15, 42-44, 
says, Wie ohne Leib keine Seele, so ohne Leiblichkeit keine 
Seligkeit ; Leiblichkeit und die dadurch bedingte Persénlich- 
keit ist das Ende der Werke Gottes. “As without body 
there is no soul, so without a corporeal organization there can 
be no salvation; a corporeal organization, as the necessary 
condition of personality, is the end of God’s work.” Still 
more explicitly, when commenting on verses 19 and 20 of the 
same chapter, he says, Ein Fortleben als reiner Geist ohne 
kérperliches Organ erkennt der Apostle gar nicht als Méglich- 
keit an; die Lehre von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele ist der 
ganzen Bibel, ebenso wie der Name, fremd—und zwar mit 
vollem Recht, indem ein persénliches Bewusstseyn im ge- 
schaffenen Wesen die Schranken des Leibes nothwendig vor- 
aussetzt. “The continued existence of the soul as a pure 
spirit without a body is to the apostle an impossibility. The 
Bible knows nothing of the doctrine of the immortality of the 
soul; the very expression is strange to it. And no wonder, 


for self-consciousness in a created being necessarily supposes 


the limitation of a bodily organization.” Of course all angels 
must have bodies, and of course also if the soul exists between 
death and the resurrection it must have a body. Strange to 
say, however, Olshausen, despite his maxim, “no body no 
soul,” admits the existence of the soul during the interval be- 
tween death and the resurrection, and yet denies that it has 
abody. His utterly unsatisfactory attempt to reconcile this 
contradiction in his theory is, first, that self-consciousness in 


! 
‘ 
4 
, 
» 
* 
4 
; 
d 
“ 
4 
“ 
4 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1. 109 


departed spirits is very obscure—a mere dreamy state of ex- 
istence ; and secondly, that it must be assumed that a relation 
continues between the soul and the elements of its decaying 
body in the grave. This is a perfect collapse of the theory. 
If it involves either of these consequences, that the soul is un- 
conscious after death, or that its life is in connection with its 
disorganized body, and conditioned by that connection, then 
it comes in direct conflict with the Scripture, and is exploded 
as a mere product of the imagination. Ifthe Bible teaches or 
assumes that a body is necessary to the self-consciousness of 
the soul, or even to its power to perceive and to express, to 
act and to be acted upon, then it would be not only natural 
bat necessary to understand the apostle to teach in this pas- 
sage that the moment the soul leaves its present body it en- 
ters into another. Then it would follow either that the only 
resurrection of which the Scriptures speak takes place at the 
moment of death, or that there is a body specially fitted for 
the intermediate state, differing both from the one which we 
now have, and from that which we are to have at the resur- 
rection. The former of these suppositions contradicts the 
plain doctrine of the Bible that the resurrection is a future 
event, to take place at the second advent of Christ ; and the 
latter contradicts this very passage, for Paul says that the 
house on which we enter at death is eternal. Besides, the 
Bible knows nothing of any body except the σῶμα ψυχικόν, the 
natural body, which we have now, and the σῶμα πνευματικόν, 
the spiritual body, which we are to receive at the resurrection. 
We are therefore reduced to the choice between the first and 
second of the three interpretations mentioned above. The 
building of which the apostle here speaks must be either a 
house in heaven, or the resurrection body. If the latter, then 
Paul teaches, not what is to happen immediately after death, 
but what is to take place at the second coming of Christ. In 
opposition to this view, and in favour of the opinion that the 
house here mentioned is heaven itself, it may be argued, 1. 
Heaven is often in Scripture compared to a house in which 
there are many mansions, John 14,2; or to a city in which 
there are many houses, Heb. 11, 10. 14. 13,14. Rev. 21, 10; or 
more generally to a habitation, Luke 16,9. 2. The figure in 
this case is peculiarly appropriate. The body is compared to 
a house in which the soul now dwells, heaven is the house into 
which it enters when this earthly house is dissolved. Our 
Lord told his sorrowing disciples that they should soon be 


‘110 II. CORINTHIANS 5; 1. 


with him, that in his Father’s house, whither he went, there 
were many mansions, and that he would receive them unto 


himself, 3. The description here given of the house of which — 


the apostle speaks agrees with the descriptions elsewhere 
given of heaven. It is a building of God; compare Heb. 11, 
10, where heaven is said to be a city whose builder and maker 
is God. It is not made with hands, i. e. not of human work- 
manship or belonging to the present order of things. In the 
same sense the true tabernacle in heaven is said to be “not 
made with hands,” Heb. 9,11. It is eternal, because the state 
on which the soul enters at death is unchanging. And finally, 
this house is said to be “in heaven,” or, we are said to have 
it “in heaven.” This last clause is not consistent with the 
assumption that the house spoken of is the resurrection body. 
That body is not now in heaven awaiting our arrival there, 
nor is it to be brought down to us from heaven. But the 
mansion which Christ has gone to prepare for his people is in 
heaven; and therefore the apostle in raising his eyes heaven- 
ward could appropriately say, ‘If this tabernacle be dissolved 
I have a house in heaven.” 4. The principal argument in fa- 
vour of this interpretation is that the house spoken of is one 
on which the soul enters immediately after death, This is 
plain because Paul says, that if our earthly house be dissolved 
we have, i. e. we have at once, a house in heaven. The whole 
context requires this explanation to be given to ἔχομεν, we 
have. The apostle is speaking of the grounds of consolation 
in the immediate prospect of death. He says in effect that 
the dissolution of the haat does not destroy the soul or de- 

tive it of a home. His consolation was that if unclothed 

e would not be found naked. While at home in the body 
he was absent from the Lord, but as soon as he was absent 
from the body he would be present with the Lord. It is so 
obvious that the apostle is here speaking of what takes 
place at death, that those who maintain that the building re- 
ferred to is the resurrection body, propose various methods 
of getting over the difficulty. Some, as Usteri, assume that 
Paul, when he wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, be- 
lieved that the resurrection was not to take place until the 
second advent of Christ, but changed his view and here teaches 
that it takes place at death. That is, that the soul when it 
leaves the present body-is furnished with that spiritual body 
which in the former epistle he taught was not to be received 
until Christ comes the second time. To those who proceed 


Ξ 
3 


«Αδδω δι ον»... » 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1. 111 


on the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture, this unnatu- 
ral explanation needs no refutation. In his epistle to the 
Philippians, written still later, he teaches the same doctrine 
that we find in First Corinthians. He must, therefore, have 
reverted to his former view. Paul was not thus driven about 
by every wind of doctrine. Even those who deny his inspira- 
tion must admit his consistency. Others say that as the apos- 
tle confidently expected to survive the second advent, he here 
speaks of what he anticipated in his own case. He believed 
he would not die, but be changed at once as described in 
1 Cor, 15, 51.52. But even admitting that Paul at this time 
did expect to survive the coming of the Lord, that is not the 
expectation here expressed, On the contrary, he is speaking 
of what would take place (ἐάν) even in case he should die, If, 
worn out by his sufferings, his earthly house should be dis- 
solved before Christ came, still he knew he should have a 
house in heaven. Others again say that the interval between 
death and the resurrection is not taken into account, but that 
the apostle, after the manner of the prophets, speaks of events 
as chronologically coincident which in fact are separated by a 
long period of time. But this does not meet the difficulty. 
As the apostle is τ Sag of the ground of consolation in the 
prospect of death, he must be understood to refer, not to what 
might be expected at an indefinite period after that event, but 
to its immediate consequence. He did not glory in his afflic- 
tions because when his earthly house should be dissolved he 
would sink into a state of unconsciousness until the resurrec- 
tion; but because he would have another and unspeakabl 
better habitation. This is evident, because he speaks of his 
being absent from the body as the immediate antecedent of 
his being present with the Erte which is only another form 
of saying he would be clothed upon with his house which is 
from heayen. 5. A fifth consideration in favour of the inter- 
—— in question, is derived from the analogy of Scripture. 
e Bible in other places teaches that the souls of believers do 
at their death immediately pass into glory. Our Lord in re- 
futing the Sadducees, who denied the existence of spirits, 
said, ‘* Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by 
God, aaying am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 
the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of © 
the living,” Matt. 22,32. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob there- 
fore are living, and not in a dreamy state of semi-conscious 
existence. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we 


112 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1. 


are told that when Lazarus died he was carried by angels into 
Abraham’s bosom, i. e. to heaven. On the mount of trans- 
figuration, Moses and Elias appeared talking with Christ, 
Our Lord said to the dying thief, “This day shalt thou be 
with me in paradise,” and paradise, as we learn from 2 Cor. 
12, 2 and 4, is the third heaven. In Phil. 1, 22-24, Paul says 
that although he had a desire to depart and be with Christ, 
yet his abiding in the flesh was more needful for them. This 
clearly implies that as soon as he departed from the flesh he 
expected to be present with the Lord. This flows from the 
perfection of Christ’s work. As his blood cleanses from all 
sin, there is no process of expiation or purification to be en- 
dured or experienced by believers atter death. And as we 
know, as our Lord says, that they still live, they must enter 
on the blessedness secured by his merits. Accordingly the 
apostle says that the saints on earth and the saints in heaven 
form one communion. “ We are come unto Mount Zion—and 
unto the spirits of just men made perfect,” Heb. 12, 23. 

The considerations above presented appear decisive in fa- 
vour of understanding the apostle to mean by the house not 
made with hands, a mansion in heaven into which believers 
enter as soon as their earthly tabernacle is dissolved. It is, 


however, objected to this view of the passage, that as the 


earthly house is the present body, the heavenly house must 
also be a body. This, however, does not follow. The com- 
parison is not of one body with another; but of one house 
with another. We dwell now in an earthly tabernacle; after 
death, we shall dwell in a heavenly house. This is all that the 
figure demands. In the second place, it is urged that in y. 2 
it is said our house is “ from heaven,” and if from heaven it is 
not heaven itself. But our resurrection body is not from 
heaven in the local sense. It is from heaven only in the gen- 
eral sense of being heavenly, and in this sense our house is of 
heaven. It is not of the earth, does not belong to the present 
state of existence, but to that on which we enter in heaven. 
Besides, it is not heaven considered as ἃ state, nor even as a 
part (in the wide sense of the word heaven,) that is our 

ouse, but the mansion which the Lord has gone to prepare 
for his people in heaven. The simple idea is that the soul, 
when it leaves its earthly tabernacle, will not be lost in im- 
mensity, nor driven away houseless and homeless, but will find 
a house and home in heaven. This is the consoling doctrine 
here taught. The soul of the believer does not cease to exist 


11. CORINTHIANS 5, 1. 113 


at death. It does not sink into a state of unconsciousness. 
It does not go into purgatory; but, being made perfect in ho- 
liness, it does immediately pass into glory. As soon as it is 
absent from the body, it is present with the Lord. This is all 
that is revealed, and this is enough. What Paul learnt more 
than this when he was caught up into the third heaven, he 
was not permitted to make known. 

As Paul is speaking of himself in this whole connection, 
when he says we know, he does not refer to a knowledge com- 
mon to all men, nor to other Christians, but he expresses his 

ersonal conviction—J know. That ve ἐάν, if as it may ; 
{not although). The apostle is speaking of his afilictions, 
which were wearing away his strength; and says, ‘Even if 
my sufferings should prove fatal, and my earthly house 
be dissolved, I have another habitation.” Our earthly house 
of this tabernacle, i, e. our earthly house which is a tabernacle, 
ὁ σκῆνος, a frail, temporary abode, as opposed to a stable, per- 
manent building. See 2 Peter 1,13.14. Js dissolved, i. 6. 
its component parts separated either by violence or decay, so 
that it falls in pieces. We have, i. e. I have, as he is speaking 
of himself. The present tense, ἔχομεν, is used because the one 
event lssedianety follows the other; there is no perceptible 
interval between the dissolution of the earthly tabernacle and 
~ ingame on the heavenly house. As soon as the soul leaves 
the body it zs in heaven. <A building of God, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ 
ϑεοῦ, a building from God, one provided by him, and of which 
he is the builder and maker, Heb. 11,10, and therefore is 
said to be not made with hands, i. e. not like the buildings 
erected by man. Comp. Heb. 9,11 and Col. 2,11. The lat- 
ter passage refers to the circumcision of the heart as the im- 
mediate work of God; it is therefore said to be ἀχειροποιήτος. 
The soul therefore at death enters a house whose builder is 
God. This is said to exalt to the utmost our conceptions of 
its glory and excellence. Being made by God it is eternal. 
It is to last forever; and we are never to leave it. We dwell 
“in our present bodies only for a little while, as in a tent; but 
heaven is an abode which, once entered, is retained forever. 
The words in the heavens may be connected with house, in 
the sense of heavenly, i. 6. a celestial house. This construe- 
tion is assumed in our version where the words “ eternal in 
the heavens” are made to qualify or describe the house spoken 
of. The natural connection of the words, however, is with 


114 II. CORINTHIANS ὅ, 2. 


(ἔχομεν) we have. ‘If our earthly house be dissolved, we have 
in heaven a house of God, not made with hands, and eternal.’ 


2. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be 
clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. 


This verse must, from the force of the connecting particle 
(γάρ) for, be a confirmation of what precedes, but whether of 
what is said in v. 1, or at close of preceding chapter, is doubt- 
ful. The words καὶ yap may mean either for also, or for even, 
If the former, this verse is condinate with v. 1, and assigns an 
additional reason why the apostle looked at the things unseen 
and eternal. He thus looked for he knew he had in heaven a 
house not made with hands, and because he earnestly desired 
to enter that house. Ifthe latter explanation of the particles 
be preferred, the sense is, ‘I know I have a house in heaven, 
Sor even in this I groan, desiring to be clothed with my house 
which is from heaven.’ In this case the argument would be, 
‘There is such a house, for I long for it” This, however, is 
hardly a scriptural argument. Paul’s confidence in a state of 
blessedness beyond the grave was not founded on the obscure 
aspirations of his nature, but on express revelation from God. 
Rom. 8, 22 is not parallel, for there the groaning of the creation 
is presented, not as a proof of future blessedness, but to show 
that the creature is subject to vanity, not willingly nor finally. 
In this, i. 6. in this tabernacle, as the word σκῆνος is used in v. 1, 
and also v. 4. We groan earnestly desiring, i. e. we groan be- 
cause we desire. The groaning is the expression of this long- 
ing after his heavenly home; and not, as in v. 4, of suffering 
caused by afflictions. The ἐπί in ἐπιποϑοῦντες is either inten- 
sive, earnestly desiring, or it expresses the tendency of the de- 
sire. ‘The word and its cognates are always used in the New 
Testament to express strong desire or longing. What the 
apostle thus longed for was, ἐπενδύσασϑαι, to be clothed upon, 
i, 6. to put on over, as an outer garment. With our house 
which is from heaven. As the body is familiarly compared 
sometimes to a house in which the soul dwells, and sometimes 
to a garment with which it is clothed, the two figures are 
here combined, and the apostle speaks of putting on a house 
as though it were a garment. Both are a covering and a pro- 
tection. Our house, οἰκητήριον, i. 6. dwelliwg, more specific 
than the general term οἰκία, a@ building. Which is from 
heaven, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, i. 6. heavenly, as distinguished from a 


Il. CORINTHIANS 5, 2. 115 


dwelling which is ἐκ γῆς, of the earth. 1 Cor. 15,47. It is not 
“of this building,” ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως, Heb. 9,11. Those who 
understand this whole passage to treat of the change which is 
to take place in those believers who shall be alive when the 
Lord comes, and which is described in 1 Cor. 15, 51-54, lay 
special stress on this verse. They urge that this house being 
Jrom heaven cannot be heaven; and that the verb ἐπενδύω, 
meaning to put on over, evidently refers to the putting on of 
the new body, as it were, over the old one; and therefore can 
be understood only of those who, being in the body when 
Christ comes, are thus clothed «pon without being unclothed. 
It has already been remarked that there is no force in the for- 
mer of these arguments, because the new body is not from 
heaven. It is ἐξ οὐρανοῦ only in the sense of being heavenly, 
and in that sense the expression suits the idea of a building as 
well as that of a body. As to the second argument, it may be 
admitted, that if the context demanded, or even naturally ad- 
mitted of our understanding “the house not made with 
hands” to be the resurrection body, there would be a pecu- 
liar propriety in the use of the word ἐπενδύσασϑαι, (to be 
clothed upon,) instead of the simple verb ἐνδύσασϑαι, to be 
clothed. But the use of this word is not suflicient to deter- 
mine the interpretation of the whole passage. 1. Because 
nothing is more common than the use of compound verbs in 
the same sense as the corresponding simple ones. 2. Because 
in 1 Cor, 15, 53, 54, Paul uses the simple verb (évdvca¢Iax) four 
times to express the very thing which it is here urged he must 
refer to because he uses the compound ἐπενδύσασϑαι., That is, 
he uses the two words in the same sense, He makes no dif- 
ference between “putting on” and being “clothed pon.” 
We are not required, therefore, by the use of the latter ex- 
pression, to infer that the κα δον, speaks of the change which 
those who are in the body should experience at the coming of 
Christ. This view, as remarked above, is out of kee ing with 
the whole context. Paul was daily exposed to deaths his out- 
ward man was perishing. His consolation was that if his 
earthly tabernacle were dissolved, he had a better house in 
heaven. He earnestly longed for that house; to be absent 
from the body and to be present with the Lord. All he says 
is said on the hypothesis of his dying, and therefore he cannot 
say he earnestly desired to escape death. What he longed 
for was, not that he might be alive when Christ came, and 
thus escape the pains of dissolution, but that he might quit 


116 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 3. 


his mud hovel and enter in that house not made with hands, 


eternal in the heavens. ee 


3. If so be that being clothed we shall not be 
found naked. 


Few verses in this epistle have been more variously ex- 
plained than this. In the first place the reading is doubtful. 
The received text has εἴγε, which the great majority of the 
critical editions also adopt; Lachmann, on the authority of 
the manuscripts, B, D, E, F, G, reads εἴπερ. The latter (if so 
be, provided) expresses doubt; the former (since) expresses 
certainty. This distinction, however, is not strictly observed 
in Paul’s writings. See 1 Cor. 8,5. Gal. 3,4. Col. 1,23. 2 
Thess. 1,6. A more important diversity is that several ancient 
manuscripts and most of the Fathers read ἐκδυσάμενοι (un- 
clothed) instead of ἐνδυσάμενοι (clothed). The former renders 
the passage much plainer. ‘ We earnestly desire to be clothed 
with our house from heaven, since (or, even if) being unclothed 
we shall not be found naked’ That is, ‘ Although despoiled 
of our earthly tabernacle we shall not be found houseless,’ 
Mill, Semler and Riickert prefer this reading, but the weight 
of authority is in favour of the received text. There are three 
general modes of explaining this passage which have been 
adopted. 1. Calvin among the older commentators, and Us- 
teri and Olshausen among the moderns, say that the words 
clothed and naked must be understood to refer to the moral 
or spiritual state of the soul; to its being clothed with right- 
eousness or being destitute of that robe. Calvin says the 
apostle’s design is to limit the blessedness spoken of in the 
preceding verses to the righteous. The wicked are to be de- 
spoiled οἵ their bodies and will appear naked before God; but 
believers, being clothed in the righteousness of Christ, will 
stand before him in the glorious vesture of immortality. 
There are two garments, therefore, he says, referred to ; the 
one, the righteousness of Christ, received in this life; the oth- 
er, immortal glory, received at death. The former is the 
cause and necessary condition of the latter. Calvin lays 
special stress on the καί, also, which is inserted for the sake 
of amplification, as though Paul had said, ‘A new garment shall 
be prepared for believers at death if also (or already) in this 
life they were clothed.’ This interpretation, however, is evi- 
dently out of keeping with the context. It is very unnatural 


; 
; 
; 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 3. 117 


to make the same words have such different meanings in the 
same connection. In y. 2 we are said to be clothed with our 
house from heaven; in v. 3 we are so clothed as not to be 
found naked, and in v. 4 Paul speaks of being unclothed, If 
in vs. 2 and 4 the word refers to a body or house, in v. 3 it 
cannot refer to the robe of righteousness. Being unclothed 
is evidently the opposite of being clothed. As the former re- 
fers to laying aside the earthly tabernacle, the latter must re- 
fer to our being invested with the house from heaven. Be- 
sides, any such distinction between the righteous and the 
wicked, or any caution that the unrighteous are not to be 
received into heaven, as this interpretation supposes, is for- 
eign to the design of the passage. Paul is not speaking of 
the general destiny of men after death, but of his own per- 
sonal experience and conviction. ‘I know,’ he says, ‘that if 
I die I have a house in heaven, and being clothed with that 
house I shall not be found naked.’ There is no room here for 
a@ warning to the unrighteous. They are not at all brought 
into view. 

_ 2. The second general view of this passage is founded on 
the assumption that v. 2 speaks of the change to be effected 
in those who shall be alive when Christ comes. According to 
Grotius the meaning is, ‘We shall be clothed upon (i. 6. in- 
vested with a new body over the present one), if so be that 
day shall find us clothed (i. 6, in the body) and not naked 
(i. 6, bodiless spirits). at is, we shall experience the 
change mentioned in y. 2, provided we are alive when Christ 
comes. To this, however, it is objected, first, that as the 
event of Paul’s being alive at that time was entirely uncertain, 
and is here so presented, the appropriate particle would be 
εἴπερ ψΨ so be) and not εἴγε (i, as is sure to be the case); and 
second, that this interpretation is inconsistent with the force 
of the aorist participle ἐνδυσάμενοι, The sense given to the 
passage sould require the perfect ἐνδεδυμένοι, being then 
clothed. According to Meyer the meaning is, ‘ If, as is certain 
to be the case, we in fact (καί) shall be found clothed, and not 
naked” That is, ‘If clothed upon with our house from heaven 
(i. e. the new body) we shall not be found bodiless when 
Christ comes. This interpretation suits the words, but not 
the connection. As before remarked, the whole passage pro- 
ceeds on the hypothesis of death. ‘If I die, says the apostle, 
‘so and so will happen” This being the case, he cannot be 
understood to state what would happen if he did not die, but 


118 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 4. 


survived the coming of the Lord. Besides, the whole basis of 
this interpretation is unsound. Paul did not expect to survive 
the second advent, as is plain from 2 Thess. 2,1-6. See the 
comment on 1 Cor. 15, 51. | | 

8. The third interpretation assumes that the apostle refers 
not to the spiritual body but to a mansion in heaven. In the 
preceding verse he said that he earnestly desired to be clothed 
upon with his house from heaven, “since,” he adds, “ being 
clothed, we shall not be found (i. e. shall not be) naked.” As 
the house from heaven is spoken of as a garment, being house- 
less is expressed by the word naked. This interpretation 
gives the same translation of the words as the preceding, but 
a different exposition of their meaning; and it has the advan- 
tage of agreeing logically with the context and with the ele- 
vated tone of the whole passage. ‘If I die,” says Paul, ‘I 
know I have a home in heaven, and I earnestly desire to enter 
on that heavenly house, since when driven from this earthly 
tabernacle I shall not be houseless and homeless.’ According 
to this view the object of his desire was the glory and bless- 
edness of heaven; according to the other, it was that he might 
live until Christ came, and thus escape the pain of dying. 
This was an object comparatively insignificant, and utterly 
out of keeping with the heroic spirit which pervades the 
whole context. 


4. For we that are in (this) tabernacle do groan, 
being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, 
but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed 
up of life. 


This verse gives the reason of the desire expressed in y. 2. 
‘We desire our house which is from heaven, jor in this we 
groan, ἄς. The words οἱ ὄντες mean we who are, not ‘ whilst 
we are,’ which would require the simple ὄντες without the ar- 
ticle. Jn this tabernacle, ἐν τῷ σκήνει, literally, in the taberna- 
cle, i. 6. the tabernacle mentioned in y. 1, and implied in ν, 2. 
Do groan being burdened, i. e. because burdened. The bur- 
den meant may be the affliction by which Paul was over- 
whelmed; or the body itself; or the longing after a better 
world. As this passage is intimately connected with the pre- 
ceding chapter, in which the apostle had spoken so frecly of 
his sufferings, and as his experience in view of death was de- 


oe 


II. CORINTHIANS 4, 5. 119 


termined by those sufferings, it is perfectly natural to under- 
stand him to refer to the burden of sorrow. It was because 
he suffered so much that he groaned to be delivered, i. e. to 
be absent from the body and present with the Lord. ot 
that we would be unclothed. The words are ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, which in 
Rom. 5,12 mean propterea quod, ‘because that;* but here 
they more naturally mean qguare, ‘wherefore’ They intro- 
duce the reason of what follows, not of what precedes. ‘On 
which account,’ i. e. because we are thus burdened we desire, 
ἄς. If ἐφ᾽ o be taken in the sense of because that the sense is 
just the opposite. Then this clause states the nature of the 

urden under which the apostle groaned. ‘We groan be- 
cause that we do not wish to be unclothed” It was then the 
dread of death, or the desire to be glorified without the ne- 
eessity of dying, that was the object of the apostle’s intense 
desire. This is altogether unworthy of the man and incon- 
sistent with the context. Paul says,‘ We groan being bur- 
dened, wherefore, i. e. because thus μας Lay's ὦ we do not wish 
to die; death is not that for which we long, but that which 
comes after death. It is not mere exemption from the bur- 
den of life, from its duties, its labours or its sufferings, which 
is the object of desire, but to be in heaven.’ The passage is 
in its βρέ and meaning altogether parallel with ν. 8, “ὙὙ11- 
ing rather to be absent from the body and present with the 
Lord.” 700 be unclothed means to lay aside our earthly taber- 
nacle. Zo be clothed upon means to enter the house not made 
with hands. As the earthly house is compared to a garment, 
so is the heavenly house. Zhat mortality (τὸ ϑνητόν, that 
which is mortal) may be swallowed up of life, i. e. absorbed 
by it so that the one ceases to appear and the other becomes 
dominant. Comp. 1 Cor. 15, 53.54. This is the elevated ob- 
ject of the apostle’s longing desire. It was not death, not 
annihilation, nor mere exemption from suffering; but to be 
raised to that higher state of existence in which all that was 
mortal, earthly and corrupt about him should be absorbed in 
the life of God, that divine and eternal life arising from the 
beatific vision of God, and consisting in perfect Ἐὶ 


owledge, 
holiness and blessedness. 


5. Now, he that hath wrought us for the selfsame 
thing (is) God, who also hath given unto us the earnest 
of the Spirit. | 

6 


120 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 6. 


Tt was something very heroic and grand for a poor, perse- 
cuted man to stand thus erect in the prevenee of his enemies 
and in the immediate prospect of death, and avow such supe- 
riority to all suffering, and such confidence of a glorious im- 
mortality. The apostle, therefore, adds that neither the 
elevated feelings which he expressed, nor his preparation for 
the exalted state of existence which he so confidently expect- 
ed, was due to himself. He who hath wrought us for the 
selfsame thing is God. 'The words εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, to this very 
thing, naturally refers to what immediately precedes, the 
being clothed upon so that mortality should be swallowed up 
of life. For this elevated destiny God had prepared him; 
not created him, but (ὁ κατεργασάμενος) made him fit by giving 
the requisite qualifications. He was, as a believer, looking 
forward with joyful expectation to his home in heaven, the 
workmanship of God. Who also hath given unto us the 
earnest of the Spirit. God had not only prepared him for 
future glory, but had given him the assurance of a blessed 
immortality, of which the indwelling of the Holy Ghost 
was the earnest, 1, 6, a foretaste and pledge. 1, 22. Eph. 1, 
18.14. Rom. 5,5. 8,16. According to the view given 
above of the context, the object of the apostle’s desire was 
not the resurrection, nor the change which the living be- 
liever is to experience at Christ’s coming, but the state of 
glory immediately subsequent to death. It is therefore of 
that the Holy Spirit is here declared to be the earnest. Else- 
where, as in Rom. 8, 11, the indwelling of the Spirit is repre- 
sented as the pledge of the future life of the body, because he 
is the source of that life which the believer derives from 
Christ, and which pertains to the body as well as to the soul. 
Comp. 1 Cor. 6,19. All therefore in whom the Spirit dwells, 
i. e. manifests his permanent presence by producing within 
them the Christian graces, have the pledge of immediate ad- 
mission into heaven when they die, and of a glorious resurrec- 
tion when the Lord comes. | 


6. Therefore (we are) always confident, knowing 
that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent 
from the Lord. 


The grammatical construction in this and the following 
verse, 8, is interrupted and irregular, which our translators 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 7. 121 


have helped out by inserting the words we are, thus turning 
the participle ϑαῤῥοῦντες into a verb. The unfinished sentence 
in y. 6 is resumed and completed inv. 8. Omitting the words 
of resumption in v. 8, the whole sentence stands thus: “ Being 
confident and knowing that whilst at home in the body, we 
are absent from the Lord, we are desirous (εὐδοκοῦμεν) rather 
to be absent from the body and present with the Lord.” This 
verse is introduced as a consequence of what precedes. ‘ Havy- 
ing the earnest of the Spirit, therefore we are confident.’ 
This confidence is not a mere temporary feeling due to some 
transient excitement; but a permanent state of mind. Being 
always, πάντοτε, on all occasions and under all circumstances, 
even in the midst of dangers and discouragements which, were 
it not for divine support, would produce despair. The ground 
of the boldness and confidence expressed by the word ϑαῤῥοῦν- 
τες is not any thing in the believer; it is not his natural 
courage, not the strength of his convictions; but it is a state 
of mind produced by the indwelling of the Spirit, and the 
natural ἄν δι ῴτψῳ of his presence. Being confident and 
knowing ; both these particles are grammatically constructed 
with the verb we are willing, εὐδοκοῦμεν, in v. 8, and together 
express the pone of the apostle’s desire to be absent from 
the body. nowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, 
we are absent from the Lord. The words ἐνδημέω, to be at 
home (literally, among one’s people), and ἐκδημέω are opposed 
to each other. The figure is slightly changed from that used 
in the preceding verses. There it was a house, here a city, at 
least δῆμος, people, naturally suggests that idea. Comp. Phil. 
3,20. Heb. 11,13. 13, 14. 


7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight.) 


This is a passing, parenthetical remark, intended as a con- 
firmation of the preceding declaration. ‘We are absent from 
the Lord, for we now, in this life, walk by faith” The passage 
is parallel to Rom, 8, 24, “ We are saved by hope (or in hope, 
i. 6, in prospect),” Salvation is not a present, but a future 
good. So here, presence with the Lord is now a matter of 
faith, not of fruition. The condition of our present state of 
being is that of believing. The faith which is the evidence of 
things not seen and the substance (or assurance) of things 
hoped for, is the element in which we live, so long as we are 
not present with those things, Being the objects of faith they 


122 II. CORINTHIANS 5,8. © 


are of course absent. The preposition, διά, may have its ordi- 
nary force, “ We walk by means of faith;” it is by faith we 
regulate our walk through life. Or it may be used here as in 
Rom. 8, 25. Heb. 12, 1, and elsewhere, to mark the attending 
circumstances, “we wait with patience,” “let us run with 
patience,” “we walk with faith.’ And not by sight. The 
word εἶδος does not mean the sense of sight, but the thing 
seen, form, appearance, that which is the object of sight. In 
Luke 3, 22, the Spirit is said to have descended σωματικῷ εἴδει, 
in @ bodily shape ; in 9,29 it is said of our Lord that the 
εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ, the fashion of his face was changed ; 
and in John 5,37 our Lord tells the Jews, speaking of the 
Father, ‘Ye have never heard his voice or seen his (εἶδος) 
shape.” If this, the proper signification of the word, be re- 
tained, then εἶδος is the object of faith, the form and fashion 
of the things believed. Loco rei verbo acquiescimus, as 


Calvin expresses it. We are conversant with the report of 


heavenly things, not with the things themselves. We are 
absent, not present with them. In this case διά means with. 
‘We are not surrounded with the forms of things in heaven, 
It is no objection to this interpretation that the preposition 
διά has a different force given to it in the second clause, from 
that commonly given to it in the first clause of the verse. 
“We walk dy faith, and not with, or in presence of the objects 
of our faith. This change in the force of the same preposi- 
tion in the same sentence is not unusual. See Heb. 9, 11. 12. 
10,20. ‘The majority of commentators, however, depart from 
the proper signification of the word εἶδος and take it in the 


sense of ὄψις, because this agrees best with the antithesis to 


πίστις (faith) and with the force of the preposition, ‘ We 
walk by faith, not by sight;” we believe, but do not see 
things which govern our life. This, no doubt, is the idea 
which the apostle intended, although not precisely the form 
in which he A expressed it, 


8. We are confident, (I say,) and willing rather to 
be absent from the body, and to be present with the 
Lord. 


The sentence begun and left incomplete in v. 6 is here 
resumed and carried out, Θαῤῥοῦμεν δέ, we are of good courage. 
The particle δέ may either serve to indicate the resumption of 
what he had begun to say in v. 6, or be taken adversatively in 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 9. 123 


reference to v. 7. ‘We walk by faith, not by sight, neverthe- 
less we are not discouraged” We are not only not despond- 
ing, but are so confident as to prefer to be absent from the 
body. Death is not an object of dread, but of desire. That 
the phrase “to be absent from the body” means fo die is evi- 
dent, not only from the import of the expression and from 
the parallel passage in Phil. 1,23, but also from the whole 
context, which treats of the apostle’s experience in view of 
death. He was surrounded by dangers; he could scarcely 
bear up under the load of his sufferings; he was every day 
exposed to a violent death, which he had escaped hitherto 
only, as it were, by miracle; still he was not cast down. He 
sustained his courage, and even desired to die. There can be 
no doubt that this verse is parallel with v. 4, where the apostle 
says he desired to be clothed upon, i. e. with his house which 
is from heayen. The object of desire is the same in both, 
It is also plain that in this verse it is absence from the body 
and presence with the Lord, not the being changed from cor- 
ruptible to incorruptible without dying, that he earnestly 
longed for; and therefore this verse shows that the subject 
treated of in the context is the change which the believer 
experiences at death, and not that which those who are alive 
shall experience at Christ’s second coming. The words ἐκδη- 
μέω and ἐνδημέω, here used as in v. 6, are best rendered ‘from 
home’ and ‘at home” ‘We would be from home as to the 
body, and at home with the Lord” Tuer Lorp is of course 
Christ, the supreme Lord, who in virtue of the fulness of the 
Godhead is the rightful sovereign and possessor of the uni- 
verse, and in virtue of his dying for the redemption of his 
people, in a peculiar sense the sovereign and possessor of be- 
hievers. ‘The Christian’s heaven is to be with Christ, for we 
shall be like him when we see him as he is, Into his presence 
the believer passes as soon as he is absent from the body, and 
into his likeness the soul is at death immediately transformed ; 
and when at the resurrection, the body is made like unto his 
glorious body, the work of redemption is consummated. 
Awaiting this consummation, it is an inestimable blessing to 
be assured that believers, as soon as they are absent from the 
body, are present with THz Lorp. | 


9. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present. or 
absent, we may be accepted of him. | 


124 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 10. 


Wherefore, διὸ xai, wherefore also, i, 6. because we desire to 
be with the Lord. Longing after communion with him pro- 
duces the desire and secures the effort to be found acceptable 
to him. Those who have this hope purify themselves as he is 
pure. 1 John 3,3. It is impossible that those who regard the 
presence of Christ, or being with him, as heaven, should not 
desire and labour to be pleasing to him, by living in obedience 
to his commandments. We labour. The word φιλοτιμεῖσϑαι 
means more than to labour. It signifies literally, to love hon- 
our, to be ambitious; and then to make any thing a point of 
honour, or to set one’s honour in doing or attaining something. 
So Paul says, he made it a point of honour not to build on 
another man’s foundation. Rom. 15, 20. And here he intends 
to say that as ambitious men desire and strive after fame, so 
Christians long and labour to be acceptable to Christ. Love 
to him, the desire to please him, and to be pleasing to him, 
animates their hearts and governs their lives, and makes them 
do and suffer what heroes do for glory. Whether present or 
absent. ‘These words may be variously explained. 1. The 
sense may be, ‘ Whether present in the body, or absent from 
the body, i. e. whether living or dying. Comp. Rom. 14, 8, 
“Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we 
die, we die unto the Lord.” 1 Thess. 5, 10, “* Whether we 
wake or sleep, we live together with him.” The connection 
is then either with φιλοτιμούμεϑα, ‘we strive whether in the 
body or out of the body; i. e. the desire in question is active 
as well in the living as the dead ;’ or, as is better, with εὐάρεσ- 
τοι εἶναι, ‘we strive to be acceptable whether in the body or 
absent from it. 2. The sense may be, ‘ Whether present with 
the Lord, or absent from the Lord? This is only expressing 
the same idea in a different form. Whether living or dead, 
as in Rom.14,8. 3. Meyer takes the words literally, 
‘Whether at home or abroad.’ But. this is utterly incon- 
sistent with the context. The objection to the first interpre- 
tation, that the desire to be acceptable to the Lord when 
actually saved, must cease, inasmuch as the object is attained, 
is of no force. The thing desired, τὸ ζητούμενον, as Chrysostom 
says, is that we may be pleasing to Christ whether here or 
there, whether in this world or the next. 


_ 10. For we must all appear before the judgment- 
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things 


11. CORINTHIANS 5, 10. 125 


(done) in (his) body, according to that he hath done, 
whether (it be) good or bad. 


In what precedes Paul had been speaking of himself. It 
was his own sufferings, hopes, and efforts which the occasion 
called upon him to exhibit. In all this, however, he spoke as 
a Christian, and therefore in the name of other Christians. 
In this verse he expressly comprehends others, and all others. 
‘I strive to be acceptable to the Lord, for we must all (I as 
well as all believers, and even all men) must, &c. As Christ 
is to decide upon our eternal destiny, it is of infinite moment 
that we should be acceptable, or well-pleasing, in his sight. 
We must all appear, φανερωϑῆναι, This means either nothing 
more than a judicial appearance, as when any one is said to 
appear in court before a judge; or, as Bengel explains it, 
manifestos fieri cum occultis nostris, ‘we must all stand re- 
vealed in our true character before the judgment-seat of 
Christ” 1 Cor. 4,5. Col. 3,4. As there can be no disguise, 
no deception before an omniscient judge, Paul was assiduous 
in his efforts to be prepared to stand the scrutiny of an all- 
seeing eye. Zhe judgment-seat of Christ ; βῆμα, literally, 
step, then a raised platform, or seat; most frequently used of 
the elevated seat on which the Roman magistrates sat to ad- 
minister justice, an object of reverence and fear to all the 

ple. As Christ is to be the judge, as all men are to appear 

efore him, as the secrets of the heart are to be the grounds 
of judgment, it is obvious that the sacred writers believed 
Christ to be a divine person, for nothing less than omniscience 
could qualify any one for the office here ascribed to our Lord, 
That every one may receive, κομίζω, which in the active form 
means to take up, in the middle, as here, to take for one’s self, 
properly to take or receive what is one’s due, or what on 
some ground one is: entitled to. Matt. 25,27, Col. 3, 25. 
2 Pet. 2,13. The punishment which men are to receive will 
be what they have earned, and therefore what is in justice due 
to them. The reward of the righteous, although a matter of 
grace and not of justice, yet being, agreeably to the tenor of 
the covenant of grace, according to their works, it is of the 
nature of a reward. The pay of a faithful soldier is a matter 
of debt, titles and estates are matters of favour. There is no 
inconsistency, therefore, in the Scriptures denying all merit to 
believers, and yet teaching that they shall be rewarded ac- 
cording to their works. We are said to receive the things 


126 II. CORINTHIANS δ, 10. 


done in the body, because the matter is conceived of, or is 
here represented as an investment. Our acts are treasures 
laid up for the future, whether treasures of wrath, or treasures 
in heaven; and these (κομιζόμεϑα) we receive back. The words 
τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος may mean things (done) through or by the 
body. ‘Then bodily acts are taken for acts of all kinds. Com- 
pare Rom. 8,13. Or the διά may be taken as in v. 7, (accord- 
ing to one interpretation of that verse,) as indicating the at- 
tending circumstance—with the body, i. e. while clothed with 
the body. This is the sense expressed in our version, which 
renders the clause “things (done) in the body,” although διά 
of course does not mean in. According to that he hath done, 
πρὸς ἅ ἔπραξεν, Indicating the rule according to which the 
retributions of the final judgments are to be administered. 
Both with regard to the wicked and the righteous, there is to 
be a great distinction in the recompense, which different mem- 
bers of each class are to receive. Some will be beaten with 
few stripes, and some with many. It will be more tolerable 
in that day for Tyre and Sidon than for those who reject the 
gospel; and on the other hand, those believers who suffer 
most, will love most and be most blessed. Whether good or 
evil, i. 6. whether he did good or evil. Each shall receive 
according to his deeds whether good or bad. It is from such 
passages as this that some American theologians have inferred 
that the only benefit which the believer receives from Christ 
is the forgiveness of sin, and that being pardoned he is dealt 
with according to the principles of justice. Others, especially 
in Germany, have drawn from the same source the conclusion 
that the doctrine of Paul is that the merit of Christ cleanses 
only from the sins committed before conversion. Ifa Jew or 
Gentile became a Christian his sins were blotted out, and then 
he was rewarded or punished, saved or lost, according to his 
works. The merit of Christ availed nothing for the pardon 
of sin after conversion. And this again is very much the 
ancient doctrine that there is no forgiveness for post-baptismal 
sins. The benefits of Christ’s work, according to many of the 
ancients, are conveyed to the soul in baptism, but if once for- 
feited by sin can never be reapplied. This gloomy doctrine, 
which belonged to the transition period which preceded the 
full development of the theology of the Papal church, has been 
revived by the inchoate Romanists of the present day. But 
according to the Scriptures and the doctrine of all Protestant 
churches, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin, 


ὦ ee = CF -" 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 10. 127 


whether committed before or after baptism or conversion. 
It is a fountain to which we may daily come for cleansing. 
He is a priest who ever lives to make intercession for us, and 
who ever presents before God the merit of his sacrifice as a 
ΡΩΝ offering, typified by the morning and evening sacri- 

ce under the law. According to the anti-scriptural views 
mentioned above, when a man first comes to Christ his sins 
are forgiven, and he then commences anew under the cove- 
nant of works, and stands in the same relation to God that 
Adam did before the fall. The condition of salvation is to 
him as it was to our first parent, “Do this and live.’ Christ 
henceforth profits him nothing. But according to the apostle 
we are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6,14. On 
the ground of the one offering of Christ, by which those who 
believe are forever sanctified, (i. e. atoned for,) God does not 
impute to the penitent believer his sins unto condemnation. 
He is not judged by the law or treated according to its prin- 
ciples, for then no man could be saved. But he is treated as 
one for all whose sins, past, present, and future, an infinite 
satisfaction has been made, and who has a perpetual claim to 
that satisfaction so long as he is united to Christ by faith and 
the indwelling of his Spirit. Hence the Scriptures are filled 
with exhortations not merely to the unconverted, to Jews and 
Pagays, but to baptized Christians, to repent of sin and to 
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that is, to exercise trust in 
the merit of his sacrifice and the prevalence of his intercession 
for the pardon of their daily and manifold transgressions and 
shortcomings. The sacrifice of Christ avails for the sins com- 
mitted from the foundation of the world to the final consum- 
mation. It affords a permanent and all-sufficient reason why 
God can be just and yet justify the ungodly. 


Pauls defence of himself against the charge of self-com- 
mendation. Vs. 11-21. 


He declares that he acted under a solemn sense of his 
responsibility to God, ν. 11. This was not said with the view 
of commending himself; but rather to afford them the means 
of vindicating his character, v. 12. Whether his way of 
speaking of himself was extravagant or moderate, sane or in- 
sane, his motive in doing as he did was a sincere regard to 
the glory of God and the good of his church, y. 13. For the 
love of Chri st constrained him to live, not for himself, but for 

6 


128 11. CORINTHIANS 5, 11. 


him who died for him and rose again, vs, 14.15. Acting un- 
der the control of this elevated principle, he was raised above 
the influence of external things. He did not judge of men by 
their external condition. He was a new creature in virtue of 
his union with Christ, vs. 16.17. This great change which he 
had experienced was not self-wrought; 1t was of God, who is 
the author of the whole scheme of redemption. He is recon- 
ciled unto the world through Jesus Christ, and he has com- 
missioned his ministers to proclaim this great truth to all 
men, vs. 18.19. Therefore, the apostle, as an ambassador of 
God, exhorted men to accept of this offer of reconciliation, for 
which the most abundant provision had been made, in that 
God had made Christ to be sin for us, in order that we might 
be made the righteousness of God in him, vs. 20. 21. 


11. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we 
persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; 
and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 

This verse is an inference from what precedes, as is indi- 


cated by the particle (οὖν) therefore. Paul had asserted his 
earnest desire to be acceptable to the Lord, and, therefore, 


knowing the terror of the Lord, &c. In this version of the ᾿ 


clause, τὸν φόβον τοῦ κυρίου, the genitive is taken as the geni- 
tive of the subject. It is the terror which belongs to the 
Lord. ‘Knowing how terrible the Lord is.” But this is 
contrary to the constant use of the phrase. The fear of the 
Lord is that fear or reverence which the Lord excites, or of 
which he is the object. Hence it so often stands in Seripture 
for true religion. ‘*The fear of the Lord is the beginning of 
wisdom.” So in Acts 9,31, “ Walking in the fear of the 
Lord.” Rom. 3,18, “The fear of God is not before their 
eyes;” and in 7,1 of this epistle, “ perfecting holiness in the 
fear of God.” See also Eph. 5, 21, “Submitting yourselves 
one to another in the fear of Christ.” In all these cases 
(poBos)\fear means pious reverence.) There is no reason for 
departing from that sense in this place, Knowing, i. e. feel- 
ing or experiencing, the pious reverence for Christ, the ear- 


the apostle acted under the influence of that sentiment, and 
not from selfish or unworthy motives, in all his conduct as a 
man and as a minister.) As the expression “fear of the Lord” 


nest desire to meet his approbation, asserted in the nt and) 


| 
| 


Il. CORINTHIANS ὃ, 11. 129 


is so uniformly used to express that reverence and submission 
which are due only to God, it is clear from this and analo ous 
passages that Christ was to the apse the object of the 
religious affections; and that they felt themselves to be re- 
sponsible to him for their moral character and conduct. The 
evidence of the divinity of the Lord is thus seen to pervade 
the New Testament, and is not confined to a few isolated 
assages. Influenced, says the apostle, by the fear of the 
eae I persuade men. What this means is somewhat doubt- 
ful. The word πείϑειν expresses the endeavour to convince, 
as in Acts 18, 4, “‘ He persuaded the Jews,” i. 6. endeayoured 
to convince them of the truth, and in Acts 28, 23, “ Persuad- 
ing them concerning Jesus.” The apostle therefore may here 
mean that he endeavoured to convince men of the truth of 
the gospel, i. e. to convert them, or bring them to the obedi- 
ence of faith. {/ Or, he may mean that he endeavoured to co 
ince them of his integrity, or that he was really governed by) 
the fear of Christ, and was therefore sincere and honest, whic 
in Corinth had been so unjustly called in question. ) This latter 
explanation is generally preferred, both because it suits the 
context, and because the following clause seems to require 
this idea, ‘We seek to convince men of our integrity, but 
God we need not convince, to him our inmost soul is manifest.’ 
The word (zeiJew), however, also signifies to conciliate, to seek 
to please, as in Gal. 1,10, “Do we persuade (i. 6, seek to 
please) men, or God.” Matt. 28,14. Acts 12,20. 1 John 3, 
19. Many prefer that sense here, Luther, in his idiomatic 
style, renders the clause, fahren wir schén mit den Leuten. 
‘The apostle is supposed to refer to the fact that he accommo- 
dated himself to all classes, and became all things to all men, 
that he might save some. 1 Cor. 9,22. Though he thus acted 
still he was manifest unto God; i, e. God knew the purity of 
his motives. This, however, is an idea foreign to the connec- 
tion. His accommodating himself to others was not the spe- 
cific objection made against him by his enemies in Corinth, 
but, as appears from the previous chapters, his “ lightness” 
or instability of purpose, and his consequent untrustworthiness 
as aman and asateacher, Others again, take πεώϑειν in a bad 
sense. ‘ We deceive men, (as our enemies say,) but are mani- 
fest to God.” But this is utterly incongruous. How could 
Paul say in such a solemn connection, ‘I deceive men,’ and 
leave the saving clause, as my enemies say, to be supplied by 
the reader, The most natural interpretation is that given 


130 11. CORINTHIANS 5, 12. 


above. ‘Under the influence of the fear of the Lord, we en- 
deayvour to convince men, i. 6. as he had said in 4, 2, to com- 
mend himself to every man’s conscience, and whether success- 


ful in this or not he was at least known to God” Made — 


manifest unto God, i. e. to God I am (φανερός) apparent, my 
true character isknown. And J trust also are made manifest 
in your conscience. Although misunderstood and defamed 
by others, he trusted that the Corinthian Christians as a body 
had an inward conviction of his integrity. The evidence of 
his sincerity was his moral excellence, and therefore it ad- 
dressed itself to their consciences. There may be many re- 
ports against a good man which we cannot contradict; many 
charges which we cannot refute ; and yet the self-evidencing 
light of goodness will produce the conviction of his integrity 
in the consciences even of wicked men, and much more in the 
hearts of the good. 


12. For we commend not ourselves again unto 
you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that 
ye may have somewhat to (answer) them which glory 
im appearance, and not in heart. 


His object in thus speaking of himself was not self-praise, 
nor to secure the confidence of the Corinthians, which he al- 
ready possessed ; but to give them materials for a vindication 
of his character against the aspersions of his enemies, The 
connection, as indicated by for, is with the preceding verse, 
of which this is a confirmation. ‘I am assured of your confi- 
dence, for the object of my self-commendation is not to re- 
commend myself to you, but, &c.’ In chapter 3, 1, Paul had 
had occasion to repel the charge of self-laudation, and hence 
he says, he was not about to commend himself again, as some 
said he had before done. But give you, literally, giving 
(διδόντες), and therefore a verb must be supplied, ‘Giving you 
occasion we say these things” An occasion of glorying in 
our behalf, ἀφορμὴν καυχήματος ; καύχημα being taken in the 
sense of καύχησις. On our behalf, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, not simply over 
us, or about us, but for our benefit. That is, for our vindica- 
tion. Some commentators suppose that there is something 
ironical in this whole passage. As though the apostle de- 
signed to taunt the Corinthians with their readiness to listen 
to the false representations of his opponents, and with the 


Il. CORINTHIANS 5, 13. 131 


= that they needed not the disposition, but the ability to 
efend him. This view, however, is inconsistent with the 
connection and with the whole drift of the epistle. In the 
immediately preceding verse he had expressed his assurance 
of their confidence in his integrity, and throughout the epistle 
his overflowing love for the faithful in Corinth is mingled with 
his severe denunciations of the false teachers and their follow- 
ers. That ye may have. There is no object expressed to the 
verb (ἔχητε). ye may have. We may supply (τί) something, . 
and insert the words to answer, as is done by our translators ; 
or we may borrow from the context the word καύχημα; “That 
ye may have some ground of boasting.” Against those who 
glory in appearance and not in heart. This is evidently de- 
scriptive of the false teachers. The words ἐν προσώπῳ, in face, 
may, from the antithesis to ἐν καρδίᾳ, in heart, be taken, as in 
our version, for what is external as opposed to what is inward. 
Then the expression refers to the fact that those teachers 
gloried in their Hebrew descent, in their circumcision, their 
external religious privileges, their churchmanship, &c. | It 
was in these things they placed their confidence, and of them 
they made their boast. Or the words may be taken literally, 
and according to their uniform use in other Poe ge Then 
the expression describes the sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy 
of the false teachers. They gloried, says Meyer, in the holi- 
ness, the zeal, and devotion which expressed themselves in the 
face, They wished to appear unto men to fast, to wear the 
look of sanctity, while their hearts, as our Lord describes the 
‘same class of men, were full of all uncleanness. The former 
explanation is commonly adopted, and is probably the true 
one, because regard for externals is elsewhere in this epistle 
represented as the δὲ ele mat characteristic of Paul’s oppo- 
nents in Corinth. eir great boast was that they belonged 
to the true church or theocracy, and that Paul and his follow- 
ers were dissenters and schismatics. 


13. For whether we be beside ourselves, (it is) to 
God: or whether we be sober, (it is) for your cause. 


This verse again is a confirmation of the preceding. ‘You 
have good reason to glory on my behalf, for, &c” | Whether 
we be beside ourselves. The word ἐξίστημι, to be out of one’s 
mind, and other words of like signification, are used either in 
their strict sense to express insanity or madness, or in a wider 


| 


132 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 14, 


sense, to express undue excitement or extravagance. When 
Festus, Acts 26, 24, said to the apostle, “‘ Paul, thou art beside 
thyself; much learning doth make thee mad,” he did not 
mean that he was really insane. And when our Lord’s zeal 

rovoked his friends to say of him, “ He is beside himself,” 
Mark 3, 21, they certainly did not intend to charge him with 
insanity. There is therefore no necessity for taking the word 
here in its strict sense, and assuming that Paul’s enemies had 
accused him of being out of his mind. It is the more natural 
to take the word in a wider sense here, because the opposite 
term, σωφρονέω, (to be sober, or sane,) and its cognates, are 
much more frequently used to express moderation and disere- 
tion than sanity in the strict sense of that word. The apostle 
means to say that whether he was extravagant or moderate, 
whether he exceeded the bounds of discretion, as his enemies 
asserted, or whether he was sober and discreet, it was not for 
himself; he had in view only the glory of God and the good 
of his church, and therefore the Corinthians might safely 


boast of him, i. 6, vindicate him from the aspersions of the 


false teachers. Whether the extravagance or insanity here 
referred to, consisted in his self-commendation, or in his zeal 
and devotion, is matter of dispute. The former is the more 
probable, both because in the immediate context he had been 
speaking of that subject, and because in chapters 11 and 12 
he speaks so much at large of his commending himself, al- 
though forced upon him, as a kind of folly or insanity. In 
those chapters the ἀφροσύνη, (the want of mind,) of which he 
accuses himself, was self-praise; and the σωφροσύνη (soberness 
er sanity) which he desired to exhibit was moderation in 
speaking of himself and of his labours. Paul, therefore, in 
this passage, is most naturally understood to mean, that 
whether he praised himself or whether he did not, whether 
the manner in which he had spoken of himself be considered 
as ἀφροσύνη or σωφροσύνη, as insanity or sobriety, he spoke not 
for himself, but for God and his people. 


14. For the love of Christ constraineth us; be- 
cause we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were 
all dead. 


‘In whatever I do,’ says the apostle, ‘I act for God and 
his church, for the love of Christ constraineth me.’ The con- 


11. CORINTHIANS 5, 14. 133 


nection is thus plain. Zhe love of Christ here means Christ’s 
love for us, not the love of which he is the object. This is 
obvious, because the apostle goes on to illustrate the great- 
ness of Christ’s love to us, and not of our love to him. Comp. 
Gal. 2, 20, where the same idea is expressed by the words 
“who loved me.” See Rom. 8, 35. Eph. 3,19. Constraineth 
us, i, e. controls and governs us. The word συνέχω means also 
to restrain, a sense which many adopt here. ‘The love of 
Christ restrains me from acting for myself’ This is a more 
limited sense, and is not required by the usage of the word, 
which is often used to express the idea of being pressed as by a 
crowd, or figuratively, by calamity or sorrow. There is-no 
better version for it in this passage than that adopted by our 
translators. ‘The love of Christ constraineth us” It coerces, 
or presses, and therefore impels. It is the governing influ- 
ence which controls the life. This is a trait of Paul’s experi- 
ence as a Christian, and is therefore common to all Christians. 
It is not benevolence which makes a man a Christian, for then 
all philanthropists would be Christians. Nor is it mere piety, 
in the sense of reverence for God, which makes a man a 
Christian, for then all devout Mussulmans and Jews would be 
Christians. Morality does not make us religious, but religion 
makes us moral. In like manner benevolence and piety (in 
the wide sense) do not make men Christians, but Christianity 
makes them benevolent and devout. A Christian is one who 
recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, as 
God manifested in the flesh, loving us and dying for our re- 
demption ; and who is so affected by a sense of the love of 
this incarnate God as to be constrained to make the will of 
Christ the rule of his obedience, and the glory of Christ the 
great end for which he lives, The man who does this per- 
fectly, is a perfect Christian. The man who does it imper- 
fectly, yet with the sincere desire to be entirely devoted to 
Christ, is a sincere Christian, On the other hand, the man 
who lives supremely for himself, for his family, for science, for 
the world, for mankind, whatever else he may be, is not a 
Christian. Whosoever loveth father or mother, son or 
daughter, more than me, saith our Lord, is not worthy of 
me, Matt. 10, 37. He that hateth not his own life, cannot be 
my disciple, Luke 14, 26. The great question is, What con- 
stitutes a Christian? It is being so constrained by a sense of 
the love of our divine Lord to us, that we consecrate our 
lives to him. Hence faith in his divinity, faith in his love, 


134 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 14. 


faith in his having died for us, is the principle or source of the 
Christian life. And this is the only form in which true re- 


ligion can now exist. That is, the only true religion now 
possible is the worship, love, and service of the Lord Jesus 


Christ. It is impossible for a man to turn his back on Christ 
and worship the God of nature or the God of the Jews. 


Should a man reveal himself to us first as an acquaintance, 
then as a friend, and then as a father, filial reverence and de- 


votion would be the only form in which sincere and true 
regard for him could exist. ‘To deny him as father, would be 
to reject him as a friend and acquaintance. Since, therefore, 
the same God who revealed himself first in nature, and then 
as the Jehovah of the Hebrews, has revealed himself in the 
flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption, to deny him in 
this the clearest revelation of his being and perfection, is to 
deny him altogether. ‘“ Whoso denieth the Son, the same 
hath not the Father,” 1 John 2,23. It is the practical or ex- 


perimental form of this great truth, which is presented in this. 


assage, 
. Bcieias we thus judge. 'This clause assigns the reason 
why the love of Christ exerted the constraining power re- 
ferred to. It was because the apostle judged that the death 
of Christ for his people not only placed them under the 
strongest obligation to devote themselves to his service, but 
it secured this devotion. They died in him. Rom. 6, 4. 5, 
As the participle (κρίναντας) is in the aorist, it would be more 
strictly rendered, because we judged. That is, ‘I live for 
Christ, because when I became a Christian I regarded his 
dying for me as involving the obligation and necessity of my 
living for him” This was the aspect under which he em- 
braced Christianity; the judgment which he formed of it 
from the beginning. That if one died for all. The contrast 
presented, especially in the epistle to the Hebrews, between 
the priest and sacrifices of the old economy on the one hand, 
and the high priest and sacrifice of the gospel on the other, 
is that those were many, these are one, The ancient priests 
could not continue by reason of death. Our high priest, be- 
ing a divine person, and therefore possessed of an endless life, 
ever lives to save. The sacrifices of the law were daily re- 
peated, because it was impossible that they should take away 
sin; Christ by the offering up of himself hath forever perfect- 
ed them that are sanctified. His blood cleanses from all sin, 
The. apostle here presents him as the one priest and the one 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 14. 135 


sacrifice. Died for all. The words are ὑπὲρ πάντων, The 
preposition ὑπέρ, may have the general sense, for the benefit 
of, in behalf of, or the stricter sense, in the place of, as in v. 
20 of this chapter. Philem. 13. Eph. 6,20. In many places 
the choice between these senses depends on the context. In 
all those passages in which one person is said to die for an- 
other, as Rom. ὅ, 6. 7.8. 14,15. 1Thess.5,10. Heb. 2, 9. 
Comp. Luke 22,19. 1Tim.2,6. Titus 2,14. &., &., or in 
which the reference is to a sacrifice, the idea of substitution is 
clearly expressed. The argument does not rest on the force 
of the preposition, but on the nature of the case. The only 
way in which the death of the victim benefited the offerer, 
was by substitution. When, therefore, Christ is said to die 
as a sacrifice for us, the meaning is, he died in our stead. His 
death is taken in the place of ours so as to save us from death. 
That the preposition ὑπέρ, in this and similar passages, does 
mean instead of, is admitted by the great body of even Ra- 
tionalistic commentators. See De Wette, Rickert, ἕο, 
Christ, it is said, died for αἷ i. 6. for all the subjects of re- 
demption. This limitation is not an arbitrary one, but arises 
of necessity out of the nature of the case, and is admitted 
almost universally. He did not die for all creatures; nor for 
all rational creatures; nor for all apostate rational creatures. 
The all is of necessity limited by what the Scriptures teach 
of the design of his death. If his death was merely didactic, 
intended to reveal and confirm some truth, then he may be 
said to have died for all benefited by that revelation, and 
therefore for angels as well as men. If designed to make it 
consistent with the interests of God’s moral government for 
him to pardon the sins of men, then he may be said to have 
died equally for all men. But if his death was intended to 
save his people, then it had a reference to them which it had 
not to others. The true design of the death of Christ is to be 
learned from express assertions of Scripture, and from its 
effects. It isso obvious that the death of Christ was designed 
to save those for whom it was offered, that many of the recent 
as well as ancient commentators justify their explaining ὑπὲρ 
πάντων as meaning all men, by attributing to Paul the belief 
that all men are to be saved. This is an admission that the 
all for whom he died, are the all who are saved by his death. 
One of its effects is stated in the following clause; Zhen were 
all dead, or, Then all died. The word is ἀπέϑανον. It is the 
same verb, and in the same tense. ‘If one died, (ἀπέϑανεν,) 


136 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 14. 


then all died, (ἀπέϑανον). The word must have the same 
sense in both clauses. It cannot mean were dead, because — 
that is inconsistent with the force of the aorist. -Ad, (literal. 
ly, the all, oi πάντες,) i. 6. the all for whom the one died. His — 
death involved, or secured their death. This was its design 
and effect, and, therefore, this clause limits the extent of the 
word ail in the preceding clause. Christ died for the all who 
died when he died. The meaning of this expression has, how- 
ever, been variously explained, 1. It is made to mean, ‘Then 
all died to themselves and sin” His dying literally, secured 
their dying figuratively. 2. Others say the true meaning is, 
‘Then all owghé to die.” But this is not included in the words. 
The aorist does not express obligation. 3. Chrysostom, The- 
odoret, Beza and others, give the same explanation which is 
implied in our version, ‘If one died for all, then were all sub- 
ject to death. That 45, the vicarious death of Christ proves 
that those for whom he died were in a state of condemnation. 
But this suits neither the meaning of the word nor the context. 
It was not to Paul’s purpose to prove that men were in a state 
of death. It was not what they were, but what the death of 
Christ caused them to become, that he evidently intended to 
express. 4. The simple meaning of the passage is, that the 
death of one was the death of all. If one died for all, the all 
died. The Scriptures teach that the relation between Christ 
and his people is analogous to that between Adam and his 
posterity. Rom. 5,12-21. 1 Cor. 15,21.22. The apostasy 
of Adam was the apostasy of all united to him; the work of 
Christ was the work of all united to him. In the one, all 
died; in the other, all are made alive. As the sin of Adam 
was legally and effectively the sin of his race; so the death 
of Christ was legally and effectively the death of his people. 
This doctrine underlies the whole scheme of redemption. It 
is, so to speak, the generic idea of the Epistle to the Romans, 
The apostle shows that man, ruined by the sin of Adam, is 
restored by the work of Christ. His people are so united to 
him that his death is their death, and his life is their life. 
“If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him,” Rom, 
6, 8. Hence believers are said to be crucified with Christ, to 
rise with him, to reign with him. Gal. 2, 20, Eph. 2, 5. 6. 
The simple meaning of the words, “If one died for all, then all 
died,” thovelire is, that Christ’s death was the death of his 
people. This as we have seen is according to the analogy 
af Scripture; and is also entirely pertinent to the design of 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 15. 137 


this passage. The apostle denied that he lived for himself. 
He asserts that he lived for God and his people. For, he 
adds, I died in Christ. This is precisely the argument which 
he uses in Rom. 6. Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
abound? Far from it, he says, How shall they who have 
died on account of sin live any longer therein? If united to 
Christ in his death, we must be united to him in his life. 
Another consideration in favour of this interpretation is that 
it comprehends the others. They are objectionable, not be- 
cause they are erroneous, but because they are defective. 
Death on account of sin, is death to sin. Dying with Christ, 
involves death to self and sin; and of course includes the ob- 
ligation so to die. The death of Christ reconciles us to God; 
and reconciliation to God secures a life of devotion to his ser- 
vice. This is the doctrine set forth in the Epistle to the 
Romans, ch, 7. 


15. And (that) he died for all, that they which live 
should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto 
him which died for them, and rose again. 


This is a continuation of the preceding sentence, and is 
designed to express more fully the judgment or conviction 
(κρίναντας) which the apostle had formed of his relation to 

hrist. He judged that the death of Christ was the death of 
his people, and that the design with which he died for them 
was that they might live for him, This idea is expressed in 
various forms in the word of God. Sometimes our Lord is 
said to have died, the just for the unjust, to bring us near to 
God, 1 Pet. 3,18; or, that we, being dead to sins, should live 
unto righteousness, 1 Pet. 2, 26; or, to purify to himself a pe- 
culiar people, zealous of good works, ‘Titus 2,14. In Rom. 
14, 9, the mode of statement is exactly parallel to the passage 
before us. ‘To this end Christ both died and rose that he 
might be the Lord both of the dead and living.” To say 
that Christ died that he might be the Lord of his people, is to 
say that he died that they might be his servants, i. e. belong 
to him and be devoted to him. The proximate design and 
effect of the death of Christ is the expiation of sin and recon- 
ciliation with God, and the design and effect of reconciliation 
with God are devotion to his service. Hence the death of 
Christ is sometimes presented in reference to its proximate, 


138 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 16. 


sometimes in reference to its ultimate design; i. e. sometimes 
he is said to have died to make a propitiation for sin, and 
sometimes, to bring us near to God. Here it is the latter. 
He died that they which live should not henceforth live unto 
themselves. ‘Those who live,” οἱ ζῶντες, not, those who sur- 
vive his death ; nor, those who are spiritually living ; nor, 
the happy or blessed, but, those who, although they died in 
Christ, are still living. Their death in him ig not inconsistent 
with their being alive, for they died in one sense and they 
live in another. Those for whom Christ died, and on whom 
his death takes effect, thenceforth, i. e. from the time they 
apprehend their relation to him, and feel the power of his vi- 
carious death, do not live unto themselves, 1. e. self is not the 
object for which they live. This is the negative description 
of the Christian. He isa man who does not live unto himself. 
This is what he is not. The positive description is given in 
the next clause. He lives for him who died for him and rose 
again. 'This presents both the object and the ground of the 
Christian’s devotion. He lives for him who died for him, and 
because he died for him. He is not a Christian who is simply 
unselfish, i. e. who lives for some object out of himself. He 
only is a Christian who lives for Christ. Many persons think 
they can be Christians on easier terms than these. They 
think it is enough to trust in Christ while they do not live for 
him. But the Bible teaches us that if we are partakers of 
Christ’s death, we are also partakers of his life; if we have 
any such appreciation of his love in dying for us as to lead us 
to confide in the merit of his death, we shall be constrained to 
consecrate our lives to his service. And this is the only evi- 
dence of the genuineness of our faith. And rose again. We 
do not serve a dead Saviour. The resurrection of Christ is 
as essential to redemption as his death. He died for our sins 
and rose again for our justification. And it is to this risen 
Saviour, seated at the right hand of God, to whom all power 
in heaven and earth has been committed, and who ever lives 
to make intercession for us, who is the object of the supreme 
love of the believer, to whose service and glory the Christian 
consecrates his life. 


16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after 
the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the 
flesh, yet now henceforth know we (him) no more. 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 16. 139 


This is an inference, (ὥστε, so that). ‘Such is the nature 
of the change which I have experienced through the appre- 
hension of the love of Christ, as just described, that I no 
longer see or judge of things according to the flesh” ‘The we 
refers primarily to the apostle himself, as he is still engaged 
in self-vindication. He was acting from pure motives, he says, 
for a sense of the love of Christ constrained him not to live for 
himself but for Christ, and therefore he no longer judged of 
persons or things as he had been accustomed to do. Paul’s ex- 

erience, however, was his experience as a Christian, and there- 
ore not peculiar to himself. It is true of all Christians that 
they do not know (i. e. estimate, judge, feel in reference to) 
any man according to the flesh. This may mean, that the 
judgment is not regulated or determined by a regard to 
what is external. It is not a man’s outward circumstances, 
his birth, his station, his being rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, 
that determines our estimate of him. Or the meaning ma 
be, that the judgment was not determined by carnal or selfis 
considerations. Paul was not led to approve or disapprove, 
love or hate any man from selfish or corrupt motives. This 
latter view would suit the context, for the apostle had just 
said that he lived not for himself but for Christ, and therefore 
his judgments of men were not determined by a regard to 
himself. It is also consistent with the usage of the word; for 
odpé means corrupt nature, as well as what is outward. The 
following part of the verse, however, is decisively in favour of 
the former interpretation. Comp. 11,18. John 8,15. Phil. 
3,4. Paul evidently contrasts himself as he now was (ἀπὸ τοῦ 
viv) with what he was before his conversion; and also himself 
with his Judaizing opponents in Corinth. Yea, though we 
have known Christ after the flesh. The words εἰ δὲ καί, but 
even if, are concessive. Paul admits that he had once done 
what he here condemns. He had known or estimated Christ 
after the flesh. Of course this does not mean that he had 
known Christ while in the flesh, as Olshausen supposes, be- 
cause that would be saying nothing to the purpose, and be- 
cause there is no evidence of Paul’s ever having seen our 
Lord before his resurrection. Olshausen’s idea is, that as he 
formerly regarded men as men, but now only as Christians, 
i.e. had reference only to what was spiritual, so also he no 
longer thinks of Christ as he once knew him on earth, but as 
he is glorified in heaven. But this does not suit the connec- 
tion nor the facts of the case. The words κατὰ σάρκα must 


140 II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1%. 


have the same sense in both parts of the verse; and in the 
former they do not designate the life before conversion, and 


therefore when spoken in reference to Christ are not to be 
understood of his earthly as opposed to his heavenly life. 
Paul had known Christ after the fiesh in the sense of estimat- 
ing him entirely according to the outward appearance of 
things. Christ does not here mean the Messiah, but is the 


historical designation of our Lord as an individual. Paul had 


despised and hated him because he judged him only according 
to his outward appearance as a poor suffering man, yet claim- 
ing to be the Christ the Son of the living God. His Jewish 
notions of what the Messiah was to be led him to regard with 


indignation the claims of Jesus to be the Christ. Yet now © 


henceforth know we (him) no more. The order of the words 
in the original shows that the words xara σάρκα are to be con- 
nected with the verb and not with its object; εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐγνώκα- 


μὲν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν. That is, we no longer judge after the 


flesh concerning Christ ; we no longer estimate him according 
to appearance, but know him to be the Son of God, who lovec 
us and gave himself for us. Gal. 2, 20. 


17. Therefore, if any man (be) in Christ, (he is) a 


new creature: old things are passed away ; behold, all 
things are become new. 


A further inference from what precedes. What was true 
in Paul’s case, must be true in all analogous cases. If the 
revelation of Christ, the apprehension of his glory and love, 
had wrought such a change in him, the same illumination 
must produce a like change in others. He therefore says, Jf 
any man be in Christ he is a new creature. The proposition 
is general; it applies to every man. To be in Christ is the 
common scriptural phrase to express the saving connection or 
union between him and his people. They are in him by cove- 
nant, as all men were in Adam; they are in him as members 
of his body, through the indwelling of his Spirit; and they 
are in him by faith, which lays hold of and appropriates him 
as the life and portion of the soul. Rom. 8, 1. 9. Cal. 5, 6, &e. 
This union is transforming. It imparts a new life. It effects 
a new creation, This expression indicates not only the great- 
ness and radical nature of the change effected, but also its 
divine origin. It is a divine work, i. e. one due to the mighty 
power of God. It is therefore called a creation, the com- 


Il. CORINTHIANS 5, 17. 141 


mencement of a new state of being. Eph. 1,19. In Gal. 6, 15. 
Rom. 8, 9, and elsewhere, the same effects are ascribed to 
union with Christ. If we are united to him so as to be inter- 
ested in the merits of his death, we must also be partakers of 
his life. This is the foundation on which the apostle builds 
his whole doctrine of sanctification as denalepenah the sixth 
and seventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans, The word 
καινός, new, unimpaired, uncontaminated, is an epithet of ex- 
cellence; a new song, a new name, new heavens, new earth, 
the new Jerusalem, the new man, a new creature, are scrip- 
tural expressions which will occur to every reader. In the 
margin of the English Bible this clause is rendered, Let him 
be a new creature. This is in accordance with Calvin’s view 
of the passage. ‘If any man would be in Christ, i. 6. if he 
would be of consequence in Christ’s kingdom, let him become 
a new creature.” He supposes that the apostle refers to the 
ambition of the false teachers, whom he tells that if they wish 
to attain the influence to which they aspire, they must like 
him be entirely changed from selfishness to devotion to Christ. 
There is nothing in the words to require this, and every thing 
in the context 1s opposed to it. The apostle is detailing his 
own experience, unfolding the principles on which he acted, 
and showing the effect which the apprehension of the love of 
Christ had on him and must have on others. If any man is in 
Christ he is thereby made a new creature. In the Old Testa- 
ment, Is, 43, 18.19. 65,17, the effects to be produced by the 
coming of the Messiah are described as a making all thin 
new. ‘The final consummation of the Redeemer’s kingdom in 
heaven is described, Rev. 21, 5, in the same terms. “ He that 
sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.” 
The inward spiritual change in every believer is set forth in 
the same words, because it is the type and necessary condition 
of this great cosmical change. What would avail any con- 
ceivable change in things external, if the heart remained a 
cage of unclean birds? ‘The apostle therefore says that if any 
man is in Christ he experiences a change analogous to that 
predicted by the prophets, and like to that which we still an- 
ticipate when earth shall become heaven. “Old things are 
passed away; behold, all things have become new.” Old 
opinions, views, plans, desires, principles and affections are 
ἃ away ; new views of truth, new principles, new appre- 
ensions of the destiny of man, and new feelings and purposes 
fill and govern the soul, 


' ~~~) a 
ῃ eb: 
- 
Ps 


4 


142 11. CORINTHIANS 5, 18. 


18. And all things (are) of God, who hath recon- 
ciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to 
us the ministry of reconciliation. : ἐν 


All things are of God ; this is not spoken of the universe 
as proceeding from God as its author; nor does it refer to 
the providential agency of God, by which all events are con- 
trolled. The meaning of τὰ δὲ πάντα here is, but all is of God, 
i, 6. the entire change of which he had been speaking. The 
new creation experienced by those who are in Christ is ἐκ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, is out of God, proceeds from him as its efficient cause. 
It is his work. God effects this great moral and spiritual 
revolution by reconciling us unto himself. The word us is 
not to be limited to the apostle, first, because the reconciliation 
spoken of is not peculiar to him; and secondly, because the 
change or new creation effected by this reconciliation belongs 
to all who are in Christ. Us, therefore, must include all who 
are in Christ. The objection to this interpretation that to us 
in the next clause of the verse must refer to the apostle, is 
not a serious one, because the passage is perfectly perspicuous 
even supposing ἡμᾶς, us, to refer to all believers, and ἡμῖν, to 
us, to the apostle himself. 1700 reconcile is to remove enmity 
between parties at variance with each other. In this case 
God is the reconciler. Man never makes reconciliation, It 
is what he experiences or embraces, not what he does, The 
enmity between God and man, the barrier which separated 
them, is removed by the act of God. This is plain, 1. Because 
it is said to be effected by Jesus Christ, that is, by his death. 
The death of Christ, however, is always represented as recon- 
ciling us to God as a sacrifice; the design and nature of a 
sacrifice are to propitiate and not to reform. 2. In the paral- 
lel passage, Rom. 5, 9. 10, being ‘‘ reconciled by the death of 
the Son,” is interchanged as equivalent with “ being justified 
by his blood,” which proves that the reconciliation intended 
consists in the satisfaction of the divine justice by the sacrifice 
of Christ. 3. In this case our reconciliation to God is made 
the source and cause of our new creation, i. e. of our regene- 
ration and holiness. God’s reconciliation to us must precede 
our reconciliation to him, This, as remarked above, is the 
great doctrine of the Bible. So long as we are under the 
wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, we are aliens and 
enemies, cut off from his favour and fellowship, which are the 
life of the soul. Therefore until God’s wrath and curse are 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 19. 143 


removed, there is no possibility of holiness and love. It is 
vain to attempt to secure the favour of God by being holy; 
we must enjoy his favour before we can be holy. See Rom. 
7,56. As the apostle here ascribes our holiness to our being 
reconciled to God, he must of necessity refer to the reconcilia- 
tion of God to us; i. 6. to his being propitious, ready to re- 
ceive us into his favour and to manifest to us his love. And 
hath given to us, i. e. to the apostle and to other preachers of 
the gospel, for the thing given was not somethin; peculiar to 
the apostles but common to all preachers, viz., t.le minis 
of reconciliation, i. e. the office and duty of announcing this 
reconciliation. It is therefore the peculiar duty or special 
design of the ministry to proclaim to men that God, justly 
offended by their sins, can be just and yet justify those who 
come to him by Jesus Christ. This is the εὐαγγέλιον, or glad 
tidings, which our blessed Lord has commissioned his disciples 
to announce to every creature under heaven. 


19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the 
world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto 
them; and hath committed unto us the word of recon- 
ciliation. 

This verse is an explanation and confirmation of what pre- 
eedes. According to our version, and to the common inter- 
pretation, it is an explanation of the last clause of y. 18, i. 6. 
of the “reconciliation” there spoken of. ‘He hath given to 
us the ministry of reconciliation—because God was reconciling 
the world unto himself, ὅσο. To this it is objected by Meyer 
and others, that the position of the word ϑεός (God) requires 
the emphasis to be thrown on that word; and secondly, that 
the two following clauses must, in that case, explain the mode 
of that reconciliation. Paul would then say, ‘God was recon- 
ciling the world unto himself, having committed to us the 
word of reconciliation.’ But our reconciliation to God is not 
the ministry of reconciliation. The former does not consist 
in the latter; nor is the first the consequence of the second, 
This verse therefore is referred to the first clause of v. 18, 
* All things are of God, &c., because God was reconciling, &¢,? 
The words ὡς ὅτι, rendered to wit, mean here seeing that, or 
because. They are equivalent to the simple ὅτι. The expres- 
sion is explained either as a pleonasm,'or as the mixture of 
two i ieee ὡς ϑεοῦ ὄντος and ὅτι 3εός ἐστι, 


144 Il. CORINTHIANS 5, 19. 


The principal difference among interpreters in the explana- 
tion of this verse relates to the question whether (ἦν) was is 
to be referred to (ἐν Χριστῷ) in Christ, or to (καταλλάσσων) 
reconciling. Our version favours the former mode of con- 
struction, which is adopted both by Luther and Calvin. The 
sense then is, ‘God was in Christ, when he reconciled the 
world unto himself;? or, as Luther renders it, ‘God was in 
Christ, and reconciled the world with himself, and imputed 
not to them their sins, &c.” This breaks up the verse into 
distinct propositions, turning all the participles into verbs. 
Calvin says that by God we are not to understand the divine 
nature, or “the fulness of the Godhead,” but God the Father ; 
and refers to John 10, 38, ‘The father is in me,” as a parallel 
expression. He thinks the design of the apostle is to assure 
believers that in having Christ, they have the Father also; 
that Christ is the true Immanuel, whose advent is the ap- 
proximation of God to man. But all this is foreign to the 
context. What follows is no proof that “ God was in Christ,” 
but it is a proof of his being engaged, so to speak, in the 
great work of reconciling the world unto himself. Most inter- 
preters, therefore, adopt the other construction, ‘God was 
reconciling the world unto himself in Christ.” As in v, 18 it 
is said that God reconciled us to himself διὰ Χριστοῦ (through 
Christ), here it is said to be ἐν Χριστῷ (in Christ). The im- 
perfect ἦν καταλλάσσων, was reconciling, expresses either con- 
temporary or continuous action. The sense may be, ‘God 
was, when Christ died, reconciling the world unto himself;? 
that was what he was doing and designed to do when he gaye 
his Son up for us all. So “Meyer and others, Or, the refer- 
ence is to what follows ; ‘ He reconciled the world, not imput- 
ing unto men their sins, ὥς, That is, ‘ While not imputing, 
ἄς. But this is impossible, because the next clause, ‘and 
given to us the word of reconciliation,’ cannot express what 
Was contemporaneous with the reconciling. Others say that 
the imperfect is used for the aorist. The first explanation is 
to be preferred. God was reconciling the world unto himself, 
means God was making atonement for the sins of the world. 
He set Christ forth as a propitiation, Theodoret explains ἦν 
καταλλάσσων by καταλλαγὰς ἐποιήσατο. By the world (κόσμος, 
without the article) is meant man, mankind. 'The reference 
or statement is perfectly indefinite ; it merely indicates the 
class of beings towards whom God was manifesting himself as 
propitious, In the same sense our Lord is called the Saviour 


II. CORINTHIANS 5,20. 148 


of the world, or, the Saviour of men, Jesus Salvator Hominum. 
To reconcile unto himself, does not mean to convert, orto 
render friendly to himself. This is plain first, because this re- 
conciliation is said to be effected by the death of Christ as 
a sacrifice ; and secondly, because what follows is not a proof 
of God’s converting the world, but it is a proof of his being 
ser ρος The proof that God was reconciling the world to 
imself in Christ (i. e. m his death) is that he does not impute 
to men their trespasses, and that he has established the minis- 
try of reconciliation. The forgiveness of sin and the institu- 
tion of the ministry are clear evidence that God is propitious. 
Not to impute sin, is to forgive it. Rom. 4,5. 2'Tim. 4, 16. 
In Col. 2, 13, the same idea is expressed by saying, “hath 
forgiven you all trespasses.’ The participle μὴ λογιζόμενος, 
not imputing, is in the present because continuous action is 
intended ; whereas in the next clause, ϑέμενος, having com- 
mitted, is a past participle, because the institution of the min- 
istry was done once forall. 700 them, i. e. to men, as included 
in the κόσμος, world. When God is said to forgive men it of 
course does not mean that all men, penitent and impenitent, 
believing and unbelieving, are forgiven; but here, as before, 
the class of beings is indicated towards whom forgiveness is 
exercised, God is propitious to men, as is manifest by his 
forgiving their trespasses. And hath committed unto us, καὶ 
ϑέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν, i. 6. having deposited in us. This may mean, 
‘having put within us, i. e.in our souls. Or the idea may be, 
‘having placed upon us’ If the former, then the following 
words, τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς, must mean ‘the doctrine of 
reconciliation.” That is, God hath instructed us apostles in 
the doctrine of reconciliation. If the latter, then the clause 
just quoted means, ‘the word of reconciliation,’ i, e. the 
preaching of reconciliation, as in 1 Cor, 1, 18, ὃ λόγος τοῦ σταυ- 
pov means ‘ the preaching of the cross.” This latter view is to 
be preferred. ‘The evidence that the death of Christ has been 
accepted as an expiation for sin, of infinite value and efficiency, 
is the fact that God hath commissioned his ministers to an- 
nounce to all men that God is reconciled and ready to forgive, 
so that whosoever will may turn unto him and live. 


20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as 
though God did beseech (you) by us: we pray (you) 
in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. | 


146 11. CORINTHIANS 5, 20. 


This is an inference from what precedes.. Now then (οὖν, 
therefore). *Secing that God in Christ is reconciled, and that 
he has commissioned us to make known this great truth, it 
follows that we, as preachers of the gospel, are ambassadors 
of Christ... An ambassador is at once a messenger and a 
representative. He does not speak in his own name. He 
does not act on his own authority. What he communi- 
cates is not his own opinions or demands, but simply what he 
has been told or commissioned to say. His message derives 
no part of its importance or trustworthiness from him. 
At the same time he is more than a mere messenger. He 
represents his sovereign. He speaks with authority, as ac- 
credited to act in the name of his master. Any neglect, con- 
tempt or injury done to him in his official character, is not a 
personal offence, but an offence to the sovereign or state by 
whom he is commissioned. All this is true of ministers. 
They are messengers. They communicate what they have re- 
ceived, not their own speculations or doctrines, What they 
announce derives its importance not from them, but from him 
who sends them. Nevertheless, as they speak in Christ’s 
name and by his authority, as he hath ordained the ministry 
and calls men by his Spirit into the sacred oflice, the rejec- 
tion of their message is the rejection of Christ, and any injury 
done unto them as ministers is done unto him. 

For Christ, ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, this may mean either ‘in Christ’s 
stead,’ as his substitute and Ἂν Stat ow fee or, ‘in Christ’s 
behalf, for his sake, to promote his interests by furthering the 
accomplishment of the object for which he died ; as in Eph. 
6, 20, the apostle, speaking of the gospel, says, ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω, 
Jor which I act as an ambassador. ‘The latter sense is good, 
and is in accordance with the common force of the preposition. 
The former, however, is better suited to the context. To act 
as an ambassador for any one, is to act in his name or as his 
representative. And in the following explanatory clause it is 
said, ‘God beseeches you by us,’ where the idea of substitu- 
tion is clearly expressed. The clause, as though God did be- 
seech you by us, is commonly connected with what precedes. 
‘We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech 
you by us.” That is, ‘We are the ambassadors of Christ, be- 
cause it is God that speaks through us; or, we speak in his 
name, Beza and others connect the words with the follow 
ing clause. ‘We are the ambassadors of Christ,’ here is the 
pause, and then follows as one clause, ‘As though God did 


II. CORINTHIANS 5, 21. 147 


beseech you by us we pray, ὅσο. ‘This is the more natural, 
because the latter words express the prayer, so to speak, 
which God through the ministry addresses to sinners. It will 
be noticed that to be an ambassador for Christ, and that God 
speaks through us, mean the same thing. Redemption is as 
much the work of the Father as of the Son. God reconciles 
the world unto himself in Christ. God gives us the word of 
reconciliation. We are acting for God, or in his name, when 
we appear as the ambassadors of Christ. We pray you in 
Chris?s stead. Here again ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ may be either in 
Christ’s stead, or, for Christ’s sake, The former is to be pre- 
ferred as better suited to the uniformity of the passage, Be 
ye reconciled unto God ; this does not mean, ‘ Reconcile your- 
selves unto God. The word, κἀταλλάγητε, is passive. Be 
reconciled, that is, embrace the offer of recouciliation. The 
reconciliation is effected by the death of Christ. God is now 
propitious. He can now be just, and yet justify the ungodly. 
All we have to do is not to refuse the offered love of God. 
Calvin remarks that this exhortation is not directed exclusive- 
ly to the unconverted. The believer needs daily, and is al- 
lowed whenever he needs, to avail himself of the offer of peace 
with God through Jesus Christ. It is not the doctrine of the 
Scriptures that the merits of Christ avail only for the forgive- 
ness of sins committed before conversion, while for post-ba 
tismal sins, as they were called, there is no satisfaction but in 
the penances of the offender. Christ ever lives to make inter- 
cession for us, and for every short-coming and renewed offence 
there is offered to the penitent believer, renewed application 
of that blood which cleanses from all sin, 


21. For he hath made him (to be) sin for us, who 


knew no sin ; that we might be made the righteousness 
of God in him. 


This verse is designed to enforce the preceding. ‘Be re- 
conciled to God, for an abundant and trustworthy provision 
has been made for your reconciliation and acceptance, It is 
indeed doubtful whether γάρ, for, belongs to the text, as it 1 
omitted in many of the oldest manuscripts. Its omission only 
renders the transition more abrupt, the relation of the passage 
remains the same. The apostle states in this verse what God 
has done for the justification of men. The passage, therefore, 


"148 11. CORINTHIANS 5, 21. 


is of special interest, as presenting in a concise form the testi- 
mony of the Spirit on that all important subject. He made 
him who knew no sin to be sin for us. The Greek here is, 
τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποιήσεν. Our Lord 
is presented as one whom God contemplated as free from sin 
and yet he made him sin. Others understand the μή γνόντα as 
referring to Christ himself, as one having no consciousness of 
sin. Others again, to the necessary judgment of believers, he 
whom we know was free from sin. One or the other of these 
modes of interpretation is supposed to be necessary, as the 
apostle uses μή and not od; the one being, as the grammarians 
say, the subjective, the other the objective particle of nega- 
tion; the one denying a thing as it appears to the mind, the 
other denying it simply as a fact. In either case the thing 
here asserted is that Christ was without sin. This was one of 
the indispensable conditions of his being made sin for us, 
Had he not been free from sin, he could not have taken the 
place of sinners. Under the old dispensation the sacrifices 
were required to be without blemish, in order to teach the 
necessity of freedom from all sin in him who was to bear the 
sins of the world. See Heb. 4,15. 1 Pet. 2,22. 1 John 3, 5. 
He was made sin, may mean either, he was made a sin-offering, 
or, the abstract being used for the concrete, he was made a 
sinner. Many of the older commentators prefer the former 
explanation; Calvin, and almost all the moderns adopt the 
latter. The meaning in either case is the same; for the only 
sense in which Christ was made sin, is that he bore the guilt 
of sin; and in this sense every sin offering was made sin. 
Hence in the Hebrew Scriptures the same word is used both 
for sin and a sin-offering. This is the principal ground on 
which the explanation of ἁμαρτία here in the sense of a sacri- 
fice for sin is defended. The reasons, however, against this 
explanation are decisive. 1. In the Septuagint the Hebrew 
word for sin, when it means a sin-offering, is always rendered 
by ἁμαρτία in the genitive. It is always “ of sin,” or “ for sin,” 
(περὶ ἁμαρτίας), Lev. 5,9, 14,19. Num, 8, 8, and never simply 
“sin,” as here. 2. The use of the word in the ordinary sense 
in this same clause, ‘ He made him to be sin who knew no sin,’ 
It must have the same meaning in both cases. 3. The antithe- 
sis between “sin” and “righteousness.” He was made sin, 
we are made “righteousness,” The only sense in which we 
are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ re- 
garded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in 


a δλονά 


_ vow a 2. eS πα" 


ae 


»Ὺ 


eS ee ὧν δ “ἐδ μά 


~~ —_ 


11. CORINTHIANS 5, 21. 149 


which he was made sin, is that he was regarded and treated 
asasinner. His being made sin is consistent with his being 
in himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is con- 
sistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, 
our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is im- 
puted to us, Justitia hic non pro qualitate aut habitu, says 
Calvin, sed pro imputatione accipitur, eo quod accepta nobis 
fertur Christi justitia. Quod e converso peccatum? reatus 
quo in Dei judicio obstringimur..... Personam enim nos- 
tram quodammodo suscepit, ut reus nostro nomine fieret, et 
tanquam peccator judicaretur, non propriis, sed alienis delictis, 
quum purus foret τῆ et immunis ab omni culpa, peenamque 
subiret nobis, non sibi debitam. Ita scilicit nune justi sumus 
in ipso: non quia operibus propriis satisfaciamus judicio Dei, 
sed quoniam censimur Christi justitia, quam fide induimus, ut 
nostra fiat. In Gal. 3,13, the apostle says that ‘‘ Christ was 
made a curse for us,” which is equivalent to saying that he 
was made sin for us. In both cases the idea is that he bore 
the punishment of our sins. God laid on him the iniquities 
of us all. His sufferings and death were penal, because inflict- 
ed and endured in satisfaction of justice. And in virtue of 
the infinite dignity of his person they were a perfect satisfae- 
tion; that is, a full equivalent for all the law’s demands. In 
Rom. 8, 3, it is said, ‘“* What the law could not do, in that it 
was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the 
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” 
Here again we have precisely the same doctrine. What in 
one passage is expressed by saying that Christ was made sin, 
in the other is expressed by saying, he was sent “ for sin,” i, 8. 
as a sin-offering (περὶ ἁμαρτίας). 

The apostle says Christ was made sin for us, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, 
i. e. in our stead, because the idea of substitution is involved 
in the very nature of the transaction. The victim was the 
substitute for the offender. It was put in his place. So 
Christ was our substitute, or, was put in our place. This is 
the more apparent from the following clause, which teaches 
the design of this substitution. He was made sin, that we 
might be made righteous. He was condemned, that we 
i ραν be justified. The very idea of substitution is that what 
is done by one in the’ place of another, avails as though that 
other had done it himself. The victim was the substitute of 
the offerer, because its death took the place of his death. If 
both died there was no substitution. So if Christ’s being 


150 If. CORINTHIANS 64, 21. 


made sin does not secure our being made righteousness, he 
was not our substitute. Righteousness does not here mean 
inward rectitude, or moral excellence. It is true that the 
word often has this sense; and it is true that the work of 
Christ does secure the holiness of his people, and was designed 
to produce that effect, as is often asserted in Scripture. But 
this was neither its only, nor its proximate design. Its imme- 
diate end was to reconcile us to God; to propitiate him, by 
the satisfaction of justice, so that he can be just and yet justi- 
fy the ungodly. As the apostle is here speaking of the sacri- 
ficial effect of Christ’s death, that is, of the proximate effect 
of his being made sin for us, the word righteousness must be 
understood in its forensic sense. It expresses our relation to 
the law, not our inward moral state. It is that which justifies, 
or satisfies the demands of the law. Those who have this 
δεκαιοσύνη are δίκαιοι, just in the sight of the law, in the sense 
that the law or justice is satisfied as concerns them. It is 
called the righteousness of God, either because it is from him 
as its author; or, because it renders us righteous in his sight. 
Those who possess this righteousness are δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ 38, 
i. 6, righteous before God. The former is the more common 
representation in Paul’s writings. Rom. 1,17, 8, 22. 10,3. 
Phil. 3, 9, where “the righteousness of God,” is explained by 
“the righteousness which is of God.” In this view of the 
meaning of the phrase, the sense of the clause “ we become 
the righteousness of God,” is that we become divinely right- 
eous. Weare righteous with the righteousness of God, not 
with our own which is but as a filthy rag, but with that which 
he has provided and which consists in the infinitely meritori- 
ous righteousness of his own dear Son, All this is true; but 
the context here favours the other mode of representation, 
Christ was treated as a sinner, i. e. condemned, that we might 
be justified, i. 6. regarded as just before God. The apostle 
uses the present tense, γινώμεϑα, we become righteous, because 
this justification is continuous. We are introduced into a jus- 
tified state. Jn him, that is,in Christ. It is by virtue of our 
union with Christ, and only as we are in him by faith, that we 
are righteous before God. 

There is probably no passage in the Scriptures in which 
the doctrine of justification is more concisely or clearly stated 
than in this, Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his right- 
eousness is imputed to us. He bore our sins; we are clothed 
in his righteousness. Imputation conveys neither pollution 


II. CORINTHIANS 6. 151 


nor holiness. Christ’s bearing our sins did not make him 
morally a sinner, any more than the victim was morally defiled 
which bore the sins of the people; nor does Christ’s righteous- 
ness become subjectively ours, it is not the moral quality of 
our souls. This is what is not meant. What is meant is 
equally plain. Our sins were the judicial ground of the suf 
ferings of Christ, so that they were a satisfaction of justice ; 
and his righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance 
with God, so that our pardon is an act of justice. It is a 
justification; or, a declaration that justice is satisfied. We 
are set free by no mere act of sovereignty, but by the judicial 
decision of the infinitely just. As we, considered in ourselves, 
are just as undeserving and heli-deserving as ever, this justifi- 
cation is to us an act of infinite grace. The special considera- 
tion, therefore, by which the apostle enforces the exhortation, 
‘Be ye reconciled to God,’ is that God can be just in the justi- 
fication of sinners. There is nothing in the perfection of his 
character, nothing in the immutability of his law, nothing in 
the interests of his moral government, that stands in the way 
of our pardon. A full, complete, infinitely meritorious satis- 
faction has been made for our sins, and therefore we may 
come to God with the assurance of being accepted, This is a 
“eer of confidence which an enlightened conscience, bur- 
ened with a sense of sin, absolutely needs. It is not mere 
pardon, but justification alone, that gives us peace with God. 


CHAPTER VI. 


The apostle continues the vindication of himself, vs. 1-10. Asserts his 
strong love for the Corinthians, and exhorts them to keep themselves 
free from all contaminating alliances, vs. 11-18. 


The apostles fidelity and love. Vs. 1-18. 


As the occasion of writing this epistle was the false accusa- 

tions of his opponents, a strain of self-vindication runs through 

the whole. 5, 12 he said he spoke of himself to enable his 

friends in Corinth to defend him against his enemies. He was 
7 


Vie δ δὰ κι. ἡ δὼ. 
Υ̓ νὰ es « 
’ 


152 Il. CORINTHIANS 6 1. 


governed by the love of Christ, and acted as his ambassador ἢ 
as such he was a fellow-worker with God, and exhorted men 

not to fail of the grace of God, vs. 1.2. In the exercise of | 
this office he avoided all offence, v. 3, proving his sincerity 

and fidelity as a minister of God, by the patient endurance of 

all kinds of trials, vs. 4.5; by the exercise of all the graces 

and gifts of the Spirit, vs. 6. 7; and under all circumstances, 

whether of honour or dishonour, prosperity or adversity, 

whether understood or misunderstood by his fellow men, vs. 

8-10. He thus unbosomed himself to the Corinthians, be- 

cause his heart was enlarged. It was wide enough to take 

them all in. Whatever there was of the want of love or of 

due appreciation between them and him, the fault was on 

their side, not on his, vs. 11.12. He begs them to be es 

large-hearted towards him as he was towards them, y. 13, and 

not to allow themselves to be involved in any intimate alli- 

ances with the wicked, vs. 13-18. 


1. We then, (as) workers together (with him), be- 
seech (you) also that ye receive not the grace of God 
im vain. 


This verse is intimately connected with the preceding 
chapter by the particles δὲ καί, but also. He is still describ- 
ing his manner of discharging his apostolic duties. He not 
only announced that God had made Christ sin for us, that we 
might become the righteousness of God in him, but also, as a 
co-worker with God, he exhorted men not to receive the 
grace of God in vain. In our version the apostle is made to 
say, “1 beseech you also.” This is wrong; the also belongs 
to the verb—“I also beseech you.” That the word συνερ- 
γοῦντες, co-operating, refers to the apostle’s co-operating with. 
God, is plain from the connection, and from the nature of the 
work. He had just before, 5, 20, spoken of God’s beseeching 
them; and now he says, we as co-workers beseech you. So 
in 1 Cor. 3, 9, he says, “* We are co-workers with God.” In 
the Vulgate the word is rendered adjuvantes, which favours 
the idea that he was co-operating with them, assisting them 
(i. 6. the Corinthians) by his exhortations. Luther’s version 
suggests the same meaning; Wir ermahen aber euch, als 
Mithelfer, as joint-labourers or helpers we exhort you. Oom- 
pare 1, 24, where the apostle says, ‘‘ We are helpers (συνεργοί) 


yf 


II. CORINTHIANS 6,1. 153 


of your joy.” This view of the passage is given by many 
commentators. It does not, however, so well, as just re- 
marked, agree with the context; and it would require, to 
prevent ambiguity, the insertion of ὑμῖν, with you. As an 
apes or minister of the gospel, Paul was a co-worker with 


That ye receive not the grace of God in vain. What is 
it to receive the grace of God in yain? Some say that the 
meaning is to accept of the atonement of Christ, or reconcilia- 
tion with God spoken of in the preceding chapter, and yet to 
live in sin. The favour of God is then accepted to no purpose, 
But this is an unscriptural idea. Justification and sanctifica- 
tion cannot be thus separated. A man cannot accept of recon- 
ciliation with God and live in sin; because the renunciation 
of sin is involved in the acceptance of reconciliation, Paul 
never assumes that men may accept one benefit of redemption, 
and reject another. They cannot take pardon and refuse 
sanctification. Others say that the apostle here exhorts his 
readers to guard against “falling from grace;” that having 
been graciously pardoned they should not, by a vine τὴς into 
sin, forfeit the grace or favour which they had received, This 
is a very common interpretation. Olshausen says, “ It is un- 
deniable that the apostle assumes that grace when once re 
ceived may be lost; the Scriptures know nothing of the dan- 
gerous error of the advocates of predestination, that grace 
cannot be lost; and experience stamps it as a lie.” But in 
the first place, it is no argument in favour of this interpreta- 
tion that the apostle uses the infinitive aorist (δέξασϑαι), have 
received, because the aorist infinitive is very commonly used 
for the present after verbs signifying to command or exhort. 
See Rom. 12, 1. 15, 20. 2 Cor. 2, 8, Eph. 4, 1. Winer’s Idioms 
of the New Testament, p. 386. In the second place, the 
“grace of God,” here spoken of, does not mean the actual 
forgiveness of sin, nor the renewing, sanctifying influence of 
the Spirit, but the favour of which the apostle spoke in the 
preceding chapter. It is the infinite grace or favour of having 
made his Son sin for us, so that we may become the righteous- 
ness of Godin him. This is the grace of God of which the 
apostle speaks. He exhorted men not to let it be in vain, as 
it regarded them, that a satisfaction for sin sufficient for all, 
and appropriate to all, had been made and offered to all who 
hear the gospel. In precisely the same sense he says, Gal. 2, 
21, “I do not frustrate the grace of God.” That is, ‘I do 


154 II]. CORINTHIANS 6, 2. 


not, by trusting to the works of the law, make it in vain that 
God has provided a gratuitous method of salvation” That 

eat grace or favour he did not make a thing of naught. In 

al. 5, 4, he says, “‘ Whosoever of you are justified by the law, 
are fallen from grace.” That is, ‘ye have renounced the gra- 
tuitous method of salvation, and are debtors to do the whole 
law. So in Rom. 6, 14, it is said, “We are not under law, 
but under grace.” In no one of these cases does “ grace” 
mean either the actual pardon of sin, or inward diviné infiu- 
ence. It means the favour of God, and in this connection the 
great favour of redemption. The Lord Jesus Christ having 
died for our sins and procured eternal redemption for us, the 
apostle was most earnest in exhorting men not to allow this 
great favour, as regards them, to be in vain. It is the more 
evident that such is the meaning of the passage because it is 
not so much a direct exhortation to the Corinthians, as ἃ 
declaration of the method in which the apostle preached. He 
announced the fact that God had made Christ who knew no sin 
to be sin for us, and he exhorted all men not to receive the 
grace of God in vain, that is, not to reject this great salvation. 
And finally, this interpretation is required by the following 
verse. ‘ Behold, now is the accepted time; now is the day 
of salvation.” This is appropriate as a motive to receive the 
offer of pardon and acceptance with God, but it is not appro- 
priate as a reason why a renewed and pardoned sinner should 
not fall from grace. There is therefore no necessity to as- 
sume, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture, that the 
apostle here teaches that those who have once made their 
peace with God and experienced his renewing grace can fall 
away unto perdition. If reconciled by the death of his Son, 
much more shall they be saved by his life. Nothing can ever 
separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. 

hom he calls, them he also glorifies. They are kept by the 
mighty power of God through faith unto salvation. 


2. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time ac- 
cepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured 
thee ; behold, now (is) the accepted time ; behold, now 
(is) the day of salvation.) 


The Scriptures contain abundant evidence that inspiration 
did not interfere with the natural play of the powers of the 


II. CORINTHIANS 6, 2. 155 


sacred writers. Although they spoke as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost, yet they were probably in most cases uncon- 
scious of his influence, and acted as spontaneously as the be- 
liever does under the power of the Spirit in all his holy exer- 
cises. Hence we find that the sacred writings are constructed 
according to the ordinary laws of mind, and that the writers 
pass from subject to subject by the usual process of suggestion 
and association. So here the use of the word δέξασϑαι brought 
up to the apostle’s mind the word δεκτῷ, as it occurs in the 
beautiful passage, Is. 49, 8. Hence the quotation of that pas- 
sage as it stands in the Greek version of the Old Testament. 
1 have heard thee in an accepted time. In the Hebrew it is, a 
time of grace ; and to this answers the equivalent expression, 
the day of salvation. It is on these expressions that the ap- 
propriateness of the citation rests. The Old Testament speaks 
of “a time of grace,” and of “ἃ day of salvation.” That is, 
of a time and a day in which grace and salvation may be 
obtained. The apostle adds, by way of comment and applica- 
tion, “ Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the 
day of salvation.” The connection between this verse and 
what precedes is thus clear. ‘Receive not the grace of God 
in vain, for there is a time of grace and a day of salvation, and 
that day is now. Therefore, neglect not this great salvation.’ 
The 49th chapter of Isaiah, whence this passage is taken, is 
addressed to the Messiah. He it was whom God chose to be 
his servant to restore Israel and to be a light to the Gentiles, 
He it was whom man despised and the nation abhorred, to 
whom kings should rise and princes worship. It was he to 
whom Jehovah said, “I have heard thee in an accepted time, 
and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee.” This be- 
ing the case, the use which the apostle makes of the passage 
may be explained either on the hypothesis adopted by Dr. 7 
A. Alexander, in his comment on this chapter, that the ideal 
person addressed is not the Messiah exclusively, but the Mes- 
siah and his people as represented in him. Therefore a prom- 
ise of grace and salvation to the Messiah was at the same time 
a promise of grace and salvation to his people. This is the 
view which Bengel adopts. “ He saith, the Father to Messi- 
ah, Is, 49, 8, Saliesiie in him all believers.” Or we may 
assume, in strict accordance with scriptural usage, that the 
apostle employs the language of the Old Testament to express 
his own ideas, without regard to its original application. God 

in many ways, and on many occasions, promised to save 


156 11. CORINTHIANS 6, 8. 


sinners. To this promise the apostle appeals as a reason why 
men should accept the grace offered to them in Christ Jesus, 
He clothes this promise in scriptural language. He might 
have expressed it in any other equivalent form. But the lan- 
guage of the passage in Isaiah being brought to his mind by 
the principle of association, he adopts the form there given, 
without any intimation, expressed or implied, that the passage 
had not in the original a different application. Thus in Rom. 
10, 18 he might have expressed the idea of the general proclama- 
tion of the gospel in his own words, but he chose to express it 
in the words of the nineteenth Psalm, “ Their sound went into 
all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world;” 
although that Psalm relates to an entirely different subject. 
We are accustomed, without hesitation and almost uncon- 
sciously, to make a similar use of scriptural language. 


3. Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry — 
be not blamed. 


The preceding verse is parenthetical, so that the connec- 
tion is with y.1. ‘‘ We beseech—giving, &c.” This and the 
following participles are all connected with the word (rapa- 
καλοῦμεν) we beseech, or exhort, and are designed to show how 
the apostle discharged the duties of his office. This is his de- 
fence. Jn nothing he gave offence. He so acted that no one 
could fairly make his conduct a ground of rejecting the gos- 
pel. The word προσκοπή is properly the act of striking or 
stumbling; then metonymically, that at which or against 
which any one stumbles. In the figurative use of the word, 
as here employed, it means an occasion of unbelief. Paul, in 
ne the gospel to those to whom it was previously un- 

nown, and whose principal means of judging of it was the 
conduct of its preachers, was specially careful to avoid every 
thing which could prove a stumblingblock to his hearers. 
Although this motive has peculiar weight where the gospel is 
new, as among the heathen, yet every one knows that the 
moral power of a preacher depends almost entirely on the 
conviction which the people have of his sincerity and of the 
purity of his motives. This is a source of power for which 
neither learning nor talents can compensate. That the minis- 
try be not blamed ; or, as it is in many copies, our ministry, 
which gives the passage a most specific reference to himself, 
and is well suited to the whole connection. 


Il. CORINTHIANS 6, 4. 5. 157 


_ Although in the following verses the apostle, as is his wont, 
gives his discourse free scope, allowing it, as it were, to flow 
on in its own impetuous and majestic course, without any at- 
tempt to reduce it to logical arrangement, yet in his mind 
order was so immanent that a certain method can always be 
detected even in his most impassioned utterances. So here, 
he first refers to the manifold trials, vs. 4. 5, then to the graces 
and gifts, vs. 6. 7, by which his sincerity had been tested and 
established ; and then to the diverse circumstances/of evil and 
of good report, under which he had maintained his integrity, 
vs. 8.9. 10. Under these several heads there are the same 
number of specifications, nine in each. Under the two former, 
there is a ternary arrangement observable; three divisions, 
each with three specifications; and under the last, nine pairs 
of contrasts or antitheses, rising to that highest form of ora- 
torical language, where truth is expressed in seeming contra- 
dictions. ‘ Having nothing, yet possessing all things,” 


4. 5. But in all (things) approving ourselves as the 
ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in 
necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in Imprisonments, 
in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings. 


So far from causing the ministry to be blamed, Paul in all 
things, (ἐν παντί.) in every relation, and on every occasion, ap- 
puye himself, i. e. commended himself, not by self-laudation, 

ut by so acting as to force the conviction of his sincerity on 
all men. As the ministers κ᾽ God, i. 6. as the ministers of 
God commend themselves, This interpretation is required, as 
Paul uses διάκονοι, not διακόνους. It was as a minister he com- 
mended himself. Jn much patience, i.e. by patient endur- 
ance and constancy. Both ideas are ΡΝ by the word 
ὑπομονή. Paul proved himself to be a true minister of Christ 
by the fortitude with which he endured sufferings, and by the 
constancy with which he adhered to his master under all these 
trials, what follows in this and the next verse we have the 
trials enumerated to which he was subjected. These are ar- 
ranged, as Bengel remarks, in three classes. The first, are 
general, afflictions, necessities, and distresses ; the second are 
specific, stripes, imprisonments, and tumults ; the third, vol- 
untary, labours, watchings, and fastings. His constancy was 
exhibited in the cheerful endurance of all these kinds of trials. 


158 II. CORINTHIANS 6, 4. 5. 


As to the first, the terms used are often interchanged and 
often combined. θλίψεις, pressures, from without or from 
within; including every thing which presses on the heart or 
tries the power of endurance or resistance ; avayxat, necessities, 
when a man is taxed to the utmost to know what to do or 
how to bear; στενοχωρίαι, straits, when one has no room to 
stand or turn, and therefore escape seems hopeless. It is op- 
posed to largeness of place. “He brought my feet into a 
large place,” as the Psalmist says. The preposition év is to be 
rendered by before ὑπομονή, and in before all the other nouns 
in these two verses. He commended himself dy patience, in 
afflictions, in necessities, &c., &c. In stripes. Paul, as we 
learn from 11, 24. 25, had already, at this period of his history, 
been eight times subjected to the ignominy and torture of the 
lash, five times by the Jews and thrice by the heathen. Jn 
imprisonments. How often the apostle was in prison we 
know not, as the Acts contain only a small part of his history. 
He was a prisoner at Philippi, at Jerusalem, at Cesarea, and 
at Rome; and when a prisoner his feet were in the stocks, or 
he was chained. The Holy Ghost testified that in every place 
“bonds and afflictions” awaited him. Jn twmults, The 
word is ἀκαταστασίαι, which may mean “ tossings to and fro,” 
and refer to Paul’s being constantly driven from one place to 
another, so that he had no quiet abode. This he mentions as 
one of his sore trials in 1 Cor. 4,11. The word, however, in 
the New Testament always elsewhere means either disorder 
or tumultuous outbreaks, Luke 21,9. To these violent bursts 
of popular feeling the apostle was frequently exposed, as at 
Antioch in Pisidia, Acts 13, 50; at Lystra, 14,19; at Philippi, 
16,19; at Ephesus, Acts 19, 29; at Jerusalem, 21, 30. Before 
these manifestations of wrath and power the bravest men often 
quail, Such tumults can neither be resisted by force, nor be 
stilled by the voice. What can one man do before an infuri- 
ated mob? He could as well resist a tornado. Yet he can 
be calm and adhere to his purpose. “It is often required,” 
says Calvin, “ of ministers of the gospel, that while they strive 
for peace, they should pass unbroken through tumults, and 
never deflect from the right course though heaven and earth 
should be mixed.” Besides these trials which came upon the 
apostle against his will, or without his agency, there were 
painful sacrifices which he made voluntarily, and which were 
among the strongest proofs of his sincerity. These were his 
labours, watchings, and fastings. By labours are to be un- 


II. CORINTHIANS 6, 6. 7. 159 


derstood not only his working with his own hands to support 
himself while he made the gospel of no expense, but also the 
indefatigable exertions which he was constantly called to 
make, in travelling, and preaching, and in caring for the sick, 
the poor, and the interests of the church. Watchings, the 
sleepless nights which his constantly travelling, his anxieties 
and labours caused him to pass. Jastings ; this is often 
understood to refer to his suffermg from hunger. But the 
word νηστεία is never used for involuntary abstinence from 
food, and as it occurs here in connection with labours and 
watchings, both of which were voluntary acts of self-denial, 
it is probably to be taken in its ordinary sense. Perhaps, 
however, the reference is to those cases of abstinence which 
were in a measure forced upon him, or which he chose to sub- 
mit to rather than tq omit some duty or to fail to take advan- 
tage of some opportunity of usefulness. There is nothing in 
the connection to demand a reference to religious fasting, as 
when prayers and fasting are mentioned together. Here it is 
labours and fastings. 


6. 7. By pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffer- 
ing, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, 
by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the ar- 
mour of righteousness on the right hand and on the 


left. 


As the apostle commended himself in the various trials 
enumerated in the two preceding verses, so by the graces and 
gifts here specified, it was made manifest to all that he was a 
true apostle and faithful minister of God. By pureness, both 
of heart and life. This includes not merely freedom from the 
pollution of immoral acts, but disinterestedness and singleness 
of motive. By knowledge ; what kind or form of knowledge 
is here indicated can only be gathered from the context. 
Some say it is the knowledge of the fitness and propriety of 
things, which exhibits itself as discretion. But as the apostle 
is speaking of those things which commended him as a minis- 
ter of God and preacher of the gospel, and as several of the 
other specifications in these two verses, refer to gifts as dis- 
tinguished from graces, it is more probable that the reference 
is to evangelical knowledge; that knowledge which he mani- 
fested in his teaching. Comp. Eph. 3, 4, where he speaks of 


ee ea ee eee Se. | arr ν ee a aa 


160 11. CORINTHIANS 6, 6. 7. 


his knowledge of the mystery of Christ, as patent to all his 
readers, And in Gal. 1, 12, et seg., he appeals to his possession” 
of this knowledge, without any human teaching, as an unde- 
niable proof of his divine mission. By long-suffering, 1. e. 
patiently submitting to injustice and undeserved injuries. By 
kindness, i. 6. χρηστότης (from χρηστός, useful) benevolence ; a 
disposition to do good; as God is said to be kind to the un- 
thankful and the evil, Luke 6,35. By the Holy Ghost; 
that is, by the manifestation of the Holy Ghost as dwelling in 
me. It is the doctrine of the Scriptures, and specially of 
Paul’s writings, that the Spirit of God dwells in all believers, 
and that besides those manifestations of his presence common 
to all, there is given to each one his special gift, whether or- 
dinary or extraordinary; to one wisdom, to another knowl- 
edge, to another the gift of teaching, to another the working 
of miracles, ὅσο 1 Cor. 12, 7-11. In proof of his being a true 
minister of God, Paul appeals to the evidence of the presence. 
of the Spirit in him, which evidence was to be found in those 
graces and gifts of the Holy Ghost with which he was replen- 
ished ; and in the divine power which attended and rendered 
successful his preaching. He could appeal to his converts and 
say, ‘Ye are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord,” 1 Cor. 
9,2. By love unfeigned. As in the preceding clause he re- 
ferred to kindness or benevolence, here Jove must be taken in 
the restricted sense of Christian love—not that affection which 
is exercised towards the just and the unjust, but that which 
springs from the peculiar relations of the believer to God and 
to his brethren. It is brotherly love, or the love of the breth- 
ren as such. By the word of truth, that is, by the preaching 
of the truth, or preaching the contents of which is truth, The 
reference is not to veracity, but to the exhibition of the truth 
in his preaching. In a previous chapter, 4, 2, he had said, 
“By the manifestation of the truth I commend myself to 
every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” By the power of 
God. ‘The power of God was manifested in various ways in 
Paul’s ministry. “He that wrought in Peter,” he says, “to 
the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in 
me towards the Gentiles,” Gal. 2, 8. By these various mani- 
festations of divine power in his conversion, in his preparation 
for his work, and in the exercise of his apostleship, he was 
proved to be a true servant of God. Ly the armour of 
righteousness, The word “righteousness” is used in Serip- 
ture in two senses. It means either rectitude, uprightness, 


II. CORINTHIANS 6, 8-10. 161 


honesty, in the comprehensive sense of the terms; or it means 
justifying righteousness, the righteousness of faith, so often 
called the righteousness of God. Calvin and many others 
take it in the former sense here, and understand by the “ ar- 
mour of righteousness,” that armour which integrity affords, or 
those arms which are consistent with moral rectitude. Others 
prefer the latter sense of the word, and understand the armour 
of righteousness to be that which is secured by our justifica- 
tion before God. This interpretation is not only more in 
keeping with Paul’s usage of the word, but more consistent 
with the context. It was not Paul’s honesty which was his 
armour, or by which he established his claim to be a minister 
of God, but the supernatural gifts and graces of the Spirit. 
In Eph. 6,14, he compares this righteousness to ἃ breast- 
plate; here to the whole panoply, on the right hand and on 
the left, offensive and defensive, because he who is justified, or 
clothed with the righteousness of Christ, has every thing at 
command. He has the shield of faith, and the helmet of sal- 
vation, and the sword of the Spirit. 


8-10. By honour and dishonour, by evil report 
and good report; as deceivers, and (yet) true; as un- 
known, and (yet) well known; as dying, and behold, 
we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, 


yet always πέσης; as poor, yet making many rich; 
as having nothing, and (yet) possessing all things. 


These verses are intimately connected, forming a distinct 
division of the apostle’s discourse. In vs. 4.5, we had the 
preposition ἐν in its local sense, Paul commended himself by 
patience iz afflictions, in necessities, ὥς, In vs. 6.7 the same 

reposition is used in its instrumental sense, by pureness, by 
δ &c. Here the preposition διά has a local sense, 
through, in the midst of. He maintained his consistency and 
integrity under all circumstances, through honour and dishon- 
our, through evil report and good report. He was always 
the same—preached the same doctrine, urged the same duties, 
maintained the same principles, whether his preaching was 
approved or disapproved, whether it secured for him admira- 
tion or brought down upon him reproach. This is the com- 
mon and most natural interpretation. Many, however, prefer 


162 II. CORINTHIANS 6, 8-10. 


the instrumental sense of the preposition. ‘ By means of 
honour which we receive from the friends of God, and by 
means of the dishonour heaped upon us by our enemies, 
That the good honoured him, and the wicked defamed him, 
was proof of his integrity. This requires too much to be sup- 
plied in order to bring out the sense. The former interpreta- 
tion is more simple, and gives a meaning quite as pertinent, 
The figure which he uses is that of a road, along which he 
marches to victory, through all obstacles, disregarding what 
is said or thought by others. This last clause serves as the 
transition to a new mode of representation. He no longer 
speaks of what he did, but of the judgment of others concern- 
ing him. As deceivers, and yet true. These and the follow- 
ing adjectives and participles, as they are in Greek, though 
translated in some cases as substantives, are parallel with 
συνιστῶντες inv. 4. ‘We beseech you, commending ourselves, 


&c., and we beseech you, as deceivers, yet true, ὅσο. That is, 


we go steadily on in the discharge of our duty whatever men 
may think or say. As deceivers, (πλάνοι.) not merely false 
pretenders, but. seducers, men who lead others astray, and 
themselves wander from the truth. Matt. 27, 63. 1 Tim. 4, 1. 
2 John 7. It is here the opposite of ἀληϑεῖς, in the sense of 
truthful, loving and speaking the truth. Matt. 22, 16. Mark 
12,14, ‘Regarded as seducers, we are the advocates of the 
truth” As unknown, yet well known, (ὡς ἀγνοούμενοι, καὶ ἐπιγι- 
νωσκόμενοι,) regarded with contempt as obscure and ignoble, 
yet recognised and famous. The antithesis is either that ex- 
pressed in our version, between being unknown and being 
well known, or, between being misunderstood and being dul 

appreciated, The latter of the two words used by the apostle 
may well express that sense, as ἐπιγινώσκω often means to 
recognize, or acknowledge one to be what he is, or professes 
to be, 1, 13.14. Matt. 17,12, and although the former word 
does not elsewhere occur precisely in the sense of being mis- 
understood, yet to be unknown and to be unrecognized are 
ideas so nearly related, that it is not unnatural to take the 
word in that sense here, if the antithesis and context require 
it. Paul was unknown to the mass of the people; he was 
taken to be what he was not; and yet he was duly appreciat- 
ed, and recognized in his true character by others. As dy- 
ing, i. e. regarded by others as certain to perish, and behold 
we live. ‘This is one interpretation. It is, however, more in 
harmony with what follows to understand the apostle to refer 


ΡΥ Ne ee 


II. CORINTHIANS 6, 8-10. 163 


to actual facts. He was, as he says, 4,11 and 1 Cor. 15, 31, 
constantly exposed to death. He died daily, and yet he lived. 
God always interposed to rescue him from destruction when 
it seemed inevitable, and to sustain him under calamities 
which to all appearance no man could bear. As chastened, 
but not killed. To chasten (παιδεύειν) is properly to treat as a 
_ child, and as children are often made to suffer by their pa- 
rents for their good, to chasten is to correct by suffering. 
The word, however, is often used to express simply the idea 
of infliction of pain without any reference to the end of the 
infliction. God never punishes his people. That is, their suf 
ferings are never designed to satisfy justice; nor are the 
always even chastisements in the proper sense of the word. 
They are not in all cases sent to correct evils, to repress pride, 
or to wean from the world. God often afilicts his people and 
his church simply to enable them the better to glorify his 
name. It is an unchristian disposition, therefore, which leads 
us always to ask, when afflictions are sent upon ourselves or 
others, Why is this? What have we or they done to call 
forth this expression of parental displeasure or solicitude? 
What does God mean to rebuke? It may be that our suffer- 
ings are chastisements, that is, that they are designed to cor- 
rect some evil of the heart or life, but this is not to be inferred 
from the simple fact that they are sufferings. The greater 
Ee of Paul’s sufferings were not chastisements. They were 
esigned simply to show to all ages the power of the grace of 
God; to let men see what a man could cheerfully endure, and 
rejoice that he was called upon to endure, for the sake of the 
Lord Jesus. In this case chastened means simply afflicted. 
There is no reference to the design of God in sending the suf- 
ferings which the apostle was called to endure. There is an- 
other view of the meaning of this passage, which supposes the 
words to be uttered from the stand-point of Paul’s enemies. 
“Chastised, but not killed.’ ‘Regarded as an object of di- 
vine displeasure, as smitten of God, (which may be true,) yet 
Iam not killed. It is, however, more in keeping with what 
follows to understand the apostle as referring to his actual ex- 
perience. He was greatly afflicted, but not killed; cast down, 
as he says in 4,9, but not destroyed. Compare Ps. 118, 18, 
“The Lord hath chastened me sore; but he hath not deliv- 
ered me over unto death.” Let believers therefore regard 
their afflictions, when they can, not as indications of God’s 
disapprobation, but rejoice in them as opportunities graciously 


164 II. CORINTHIANS 6, 11. 


afforded them to glorify his name. As sorrowful, yet always 
rejoicing. This again may mean, ‘ Looked upon as sorrowful, 
yet in fact always rejoicing;’ or, ‘Although overwhelmed 
with, sorrow, yet full of joy.” The latter interpretation is to 
be preferred. This is one of the paradoxes of Christian ex 

rience. The believer has more true joy in sorrow, than the 
world ean ever afford. The sense of the love of God, assur- 
ance of his support, confidence in future blessedness, and the 
persuasion that his present light afflictions shall work out for 
him a far more exceeding and an eternal weight of glory, 
mingle with his sorrows, and give the suffering child of God 
a peace which passes all understanding. He would not ex- 
change his lot with that of the most prosperous of the children 
of this world. As poor, yet making many rich. Poor in this 
world’s goods, yet imparting to many the true riches; @s hav- 
ing nothing, i. e. of earthly treasure, yet possessing all things, 


in the sense in which in 1 Cor. 3, 21, he tells the Corinthians, — 
« All things are yours.” The real property in any thing vests 


in him for whose benefit it is held and used. And as all 
things, whether the world, or life or death, or things present 
or things to come, are held and disposed by God for the bene- 
fit of his people, for their present good and future glory, they 
are the real proprietors of all things. Being joint heirs with 
Christ, Rom. 8, 17, they possess all things. 


11. O (ye) Corinthians, our mouth is open unto 
you, our heart is enlarged. 


This and the two following verses are an epilogue to the 
preceding vindication of himself, and an introduction to the 
following exhortations. O Corinthians. This direct address 
is unusual with the apostle, and is expressive of strong feeling. 
Gal. 3,1. Our mouth is open (dvéwye, 2 perfect, as present 
and intransitive, see John 1,52.) To open the mouth is a 
common scriptural expression, meaning to begin to speak, or, 
to speak, as in Matt. 5,2. Acts 8, 32.35. Here, as the con- 
text shows, it is used emphatically, and means, to speak freely 
and co aS Compare Eph. 6,19. Our heart is enlarged. 
See 1 Kings 4, 29. Ps. 119,32. Is. 60,5. Any joyful, gener- 
ous feeling is said to enlarge the heart. A large-hearted man 
is one of generous and warm affections. The apostle had 
poured out his heart to the Corinthians, He has spoken with 
the utmost freedom and openness, and in doing so his heart 


II. CORINTHIANS 6, 12-14. 165 


was oe χρῆνοζι towards them. He was ready to embrace them 
all, and to take them to his arms as his dear children. 


12. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are strait- 
ened in your own bowels. 


The apostle abides by his figure. A large heart is one 
bo a by love; a straitened heart is one void of generous 
affections. To be straitened (cvevoywpéw) is to want room; 
στενοχωρία is want of room, straits, distress, anguish of mind. 
Hence to enlarge, to give one a wide place, is to deliver, to 
bless. Ps. 4,1. 118,5. Ye are not straitened in us, i. 6. 
there is no lack of room for you in our heart; but ye are 
straitened in your own bowels, i. e. your heart is too narrow 
to admit me. Straitened in your own bowels, means, not that 

ou are inwardly afflicted, or that the cause of your trouble 
is in yourselves, but, as the context requires, ‘ Your bowels 
Geary are narrow or contracted.’ There is not room in 
them to receive me. Without a figure the meaning is, ‘The 
want of love is on your side, not on mine.’ 


13. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as 
unto (my) children,) be ye also enlarged. 


The exhortation or request is, ‘Be ye also enlarged, i. e. 
open your hearts to receive me, which is only a proper recom- 
pense for my love to you. I speak as to children, who are 
expected to requite the love of their parents with filial affec- 
tion” .The words τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισϑίαν are explained as a 
concise expression for τὸ δὲ ἀυτό, ὅ ἐστιν ἀντιμισϑία, ‘as to the 
same thing, which is a recompense, be ye also enlarged,’ The 
accusative is the accusative absolute. 


14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with un- 
believers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with 
unrighteousness? and what communion hath light 
with darkness ? 


After the exhortation to requite his love by loving him, he 
exhorts them to keep aloof from all intimate association with 
the evil. The exhortation is general, and is not to be confined 
to partaking of heathen sacrifices, nor to intermarriage with 


166 II. CORINTHIANS 6, 14. 


the heathen, much less to association with the opponents of 


the apostle. It no doubt had a special reference or applica- 


tion to the peculiar circumstances of the Corinthians, and was 
intended to guard them against those entangling and danger- 
ous associations with the unconverted around them, to which 
they were specially exposed. And as we know that their 
special danger was from idolaters, (see 1 Cor. ch. 8, and 10, 
14-33,) whose festivals they were constantly urged to attend, 
it is to be presumed that it was from all association with the 


heathen in their worship that the apostle intended to warn 


them. But this is only one application of the principle here 
laid down, viz., that intimate associations ought not to be 
formed by the people of God with those who are not his peo- 
ple. The same remark may be made in reference to the per- 
sons here intended by unbelievers. It is no doubt true that 
by unbelievers (οἱ ἀπίστοι) Paul meant the heathen. (See 1 
Cor. 6,6.) But it does not follow from this that intimate as- 
sociation with the heathen is all that is here forbidden. The 

rinciple applies to all the enemies of God and children of 

arkness. It is intimate, voluntary association with the 
wicked that is forbidden. The worse a man is, the more 
openly he is opposed to Christ and his gospel, the greater the 
danger and evil of connection with him. It is not so much 
his profession as his real character and influence that is to be 
taken into account. If it be asked whether the marriage of 
professors of religion with non-professors, in the modern (or 
American) sense of those terms, is here expressly prohibited ? 
The answer must be in the negative. There were no such 
classes of persons in the apostolic age, as professing and non- 
professing Christians. he distinction was then between 
Christians and heathens. Persons born within the pale of the 
Christian Church, baptized in the name of Christ, and relig- 
iously educated, do not belong to the same category as the 
heathen. And the principle which applied to the latter there- 
fore does not apply to the former. Still it is to be remem- 
bered that it is the union of incongruous elements, of the 
devout and undevout, of the spiritual and the worldly, of the 
good and the evil, of the children of God and the children of 
the evil one, that the apostle exhorts Christians to avoid. Be 
not unequally yoked. The word is érepofvyéw, to be yoked 
heterogeneously, i. e. with an animal of another kind, The 
allusion is evidently to the Mosaic law which forbade the 
uniting animals of different kinds in the same yoke, Deut, 22, 


| 


II. CORINTHIANS 6, 14. 167 


10. In Ley. 19,19, érepdgvyos, in the Septuagint, means an 
animal of a different kind. It is the union of incongruous, un- 
congenial elements or persons that is forbidden. With unbe- 
lievers ; as the dative, ἀπίστοις, cannot depend on the preced- 
ing word, it is explained by resolving the concise phrase of 
the apostle into the full form, μὴ yiveoJe érepolvy. καὶ οὕτως ὁμι- 
ζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις. Winer, p. 252. By unbelievers, as above 
remarked, are to be understood the heathen, those who did 
not profess faith in the gospel. The exhortation is enforced 
by the following questions, which are designed to show the 
incongruity of such unions. Jor what fellowship hath right. 
eousness with unrighteousness ? This is stronger than asking, 
What fellowship have the righteous with the unrighteous? 
because there are many bonds of sympathy between good and 
bad men, arising from the participation of a common nature, 
and from the fact that in this life, the good are not wholly 
good, nor the bad wholly bad. The apostle, therefore, con- 
trasts the characteristic and opposing principles by which the 
two classes are distinguished. By righteousness as —— 
to unrighteousness, (δικαιοσύνη to ἀνομία,) is meant goodness, 
or moral excellence in general, conformity to the law of God 
as opposed to opposition to that law. It does not mean justi- 
fying righteousness, as though the contrast were, as some 
explain it, between the justified and the not justified. The 
opposition intended is that which exists between the righteous 
and the wicked. What fellowship, (ueroxy,) partnership. That 
is, what have they in common? What bond of union or sym- 
pathy is there between them? And what communion (ee 
vevia), see Acts 2,42. 1 Cor. 1,9. 10,16. Parties are said to 
be in communion when they are so united that what belongs 
to the one belongs to the other, or when what is true of the 
one is true of the other. Believers are in communion, or have 
fellowship one with another, when they recognize each other 
as having a joint interest in the benefits of redemption, and 
are conscious that the inward experience of the one is that of 
the other. Incongruous elements cannot be thus united, and 
any attempt to combine them must destroy the character of 
one or the other. /ath light with darkness. Light is the 
common scriptural emblem of knowledge, holiness and blessed- 
ness. Hence Christians are said to be the children of light. 
Luke 16, 8. 1 Thess. 5,5. Paul was sent “to turn men from 
darkness to light,” Acts 26,18. Rom. 13,12. Eph. 5, 8. 9. 
Darkness, on the other hand, is the emblem of error, sin and 
8 


168 II. CORINTHIANS 6,.15. 
misery. Satan’s kingdom is called the kingdom of darkness, 


and the wicked are the children of darkness; and the state of — 


final perdition is “ outer darkness.” Nothing can he more in- 
congruous than light and darkness, whether in the literal or 
figurative meaning of the terms. The attempt, therefore, of 
Christians to remain Christians and retain their inward state 
as such, and yet to enter voluntarily into intimate fellowshi 
with the world, is as impossible as to combine light and dark- 
ness, holiness and sin, happiness and misery. 


15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial ? 
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ? 
What concord, (συμφώνησις,) “harmony of voice.” How 


discordant or opposite are Christ and Belial? How then can 
their followers agree? The proper orthography of the word 


according to the Hebrew is Belial, as here in the received — 


text. Many MSS. read Beliar, (agreeably to a common 
change of the | for r by the Jews who spoke Greek,) others 
Beliam. The word is properly an abstract noun signifying 
worthlessness, then wickedness. Hence the wicked are ealled 
“sons of Belial,” i. e. worthless. It is used as a concrete noun 
in 2 Sam, 23,6. Job 34,18. “Wicked one,” and hence, by 
way of eminence, for Satan, who is 6 πονηρός, the evil one. 
Compare 1 Cor. 10, 21, where the impossibility of uniting the 
service of Christ and the service of Satan is presented in much 
the same terms as it is here. Christ is God manifest in the 
fiesh ; Satan is the prince of darkness, How can they, or their 
followers agree? Or what part (μερίς, in the sense of partici- 
pation, fellowship. Col. 1,12) hath he that believeth with an 
infidel. In modern usage an unbeliever often means one des- 
titute of saving faith; and an infidel one destitute even of 
speculative faith, one who denies the gospel to be a revelation 
from God. This is a distinction unknown to the Bible. The 
word here rendered infidel is in v. 14 rendered wnbeliever. 
In the apostolic age all who professed faith of any kind were 
called believers, and unbelievers were infidels, It was as- 
sumed that the faith possessed was genuine; and therefore it 
was assumed that all ae ease were truly the children of God. 
A mere speculative believer and an infidel may agree well 
enough in their tastes, character and pursuits. There is no 


such incompatibility or antipathy between them, as the apos-. 


tle assumes to exist between the (πιστός and ἄπιστος) believer 


| 
4 
ἢ 
7 
J 


=?  ) = Ρ _ Ἡ 


* 
ew Oh 


II. CORINTHIANS 6, 16. 169 


and unbeliever. It is taken for granted that faith changes the 
whole character ;:that it makes a man move in an entirel 
different sphere, having different feelings, objects, and princi- 
ples from those of unbelievers; so that intimate union, com- 
munion or sympathy between believers and unbelievers is as 
impossible as fellowship between light and darkness, Christ 
and Belial. And it must be so. They may indeed have many 
things in common; a common country, common kindred, com- 
mon worldly avocations, common natural affections, but the 
interior life is entirely different; not only incongruous, but 
essentially opposed the one to the other. To the one, Christ 
is God, the object of supreme reverence and love; to the oth- 
er, he isa mere man. To the one, the great object of life is to 
promote the glory of Christ and to secure his favour; to the 
other, these are objects of indifference. Elements so discord- 
ant can never be united into a harmonious whole, 


16. And what agreement hath the temple of God 
with idols ? for ye are the temple of the living God; 
as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in 


(them) ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my 
people. 

In this and the following verses we have, 1. The assertion 
of the incongruity between the temple of God and idols. 
2. The reason assigned for presenting this incongruity, ‘ Yor 
ve are the temple of God, 3. The proof from Scripture that 

elievers are God’s temple. 4. The duty which flows from 
this intimate relation to God; and 5. The gracious promise 
made to all those who live in accordance with the relation 
which they bear to God. What agreement (συγκατάϑεσις, 566 
Luke 23, 51,) hath the temple of God with idols? A building 
consecrated to the true God is no place for idols. Men can- 
not combine the worship of God and the worship of devils, 
Idolatry is everywhere in Scripture represented as the great- 
est insult the creature can offer the Creator; and the grossest 
form of that insult is to erect idols in God’s own temple, 
Such was the indignity which those Corinthians offered to 
God, who, while professing to be Christians, joined in the re- 
ligious services of the heathen. And such, in its measure, is 
the offence committed when the people of God become associ- 
ated with the wicked in their inward and outward life, It is 


170 II. CORINTHIANS 6, 16. 


the introduction of idols into God’s temple. For ye are the 
temple of the living God. There would be no propriety in 
the preceding illustration if believers were not God’s temple. 
This, therefore, the apostle first asserts and then proves, The 
text is here uncertain. The majority of MSS. read with the 
common text, ὑμεῖς, ye; Lachmann, Meyer and some other 
editors, on the authority of a few MSS. and of the context, 
read ἡμεῖς, we. The sense is substantially the same. The 
common text is to be preferred both on external and internal 
grounds. The apostle is addressing the Corinthians, and prop- 
erly therefore says, Ye are the temple of God. A temple is 
not a building simply consecrated to God, but one in which 
he dwells, as he dwelt by the visible manifestation of his glory 
in the temple of old. Hence heaven, as God’s dwelling place, 
is called his temple. Ps. 11,2. Habak. 2,20. Christ’s body 
is called a temple, because in him dwelt the fulness of the 


Godhead. John 2,19. Believers collectively, or the church, — 


is God’s temple, because inhabited by his Spirit, Eph. 2, 21, 
and for the same reason every individual believer, and every 
believer’s body is a temple of God. 1 Cor. 3,16. 6,19. To 
prove that they were the temple of God, individually and 60]- 
lectively, he therefore cites the declaration of the Scriptures 
that God dwells in his people. “I will dwell in them and 
walk in them.” God is said to dwell wherever he specially 
and permanently manifests his presence. And since he thus 
specially and permanently manifests his presence in his people 
collectively and individually, he is said to dwell in all and in 
each. 700 walk in them is simply a parallelism with the pre- 
ceding clause, expressing the idea of the divine presence in 
another form, The nearest approzzh to the words here cited 
is Lev, 26, 11. 12, where the same thought is expressed, though 
in somewhat different words. Instead of, “I will set my 
tabernacle among you,” the apostle expresses the same idea 
by saying, “I will dwell in them.” Jn them, is not simply 
among them, because the presence of God by his Spirit is al- 
ways represented as internal, in the heart. “If Christ be in 
you,” says the apostle, “the body is dead, &.” “If the 
Spirit of Him who raised Christ from the dead dwell in you, 
&c.” Rom, 8, 10.11. So of every believer our Lord says, 
“If aman love me, he will keep my words, and my Father 
will love him; and we will come unto him, and make our 
abode with him,” John 14, 28, Every thing is full of God. 
An insect, a flower, is a constant maniiestation of his presence 


Il. CORINTHIANS 6, 17. 171 


and power. It is what it is because God is in it. So of the 
human soul, it is said to be full of God when its inward state, 
its affections and acts, are determined and controlled by him, 
so as to be a constant manifestation of the divine presence. 
Then the soul is pure, and glorious, and free, and blessed. 
This is what God promises to accomplish in us, when he says, 
**] will dwell in you and walk in you.” It is only a variation 
of form whem it is added, 7 will be their God, and they shall 
be my people. ‘This is the great promise of the covenant with 
Abraham and with all the true Israel. It is one of the most 
comprehensive and frequently repeated promises of the Scrip- 
tures. Gen.17,8. Deut. 29,13. Jerem. 31,33. Heb. 8, 10, 
&e., ἄς. There is unspeakably more in the promises of God 
than we are able to understand. The promise that the na- 
tions should be blessed in the seed of Abraham, as unfolded in 
the New Testament, is found to comprehend all the blessings 
of redemption. So the promise, I will be their God, and they 
shall be my people, contains more than it has ever entered 
into the heart of man to conceive. How low are our concep- 
tions of God! Of necessity our conceptions of what it is to 
have a God, and that God, Jehovah, must be entirely inade- 

uate. It is not only to have an infinite protector and bene- 
factor, but an infinite portion; an infinite object of love and 
confidence ; an infinite source of knowledge and holiness, It 
is for God to be to us what he designed to be when he created 
us after his image, and filled us with his fulness. /Zis people, 
are those whom he recognizes as his peculiar property, the 
objects of his love, and the recipients of his favours, 


17. Wherefore come out from among them, and 
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the un- 
clean (thing) ; and I will receive you. 


This is a free citation from Is. 52, 11.12, where the same 
exhortation to separate themselves from the wicked, and_spe- 
cially from the heathen, is addressed to the people of God, 
The words and I will receive you have nothing to answer to 
them in the passage in Isaiah, unless it be the words “ God 
shall be your rere-ward ;” literally, “he that gathereth you.” 
In Judges 19,18 the same word is rendered ¢o receive, 
“There is no one receiveth me to house.” It is more proba- 
ble, however, that they are borrowed from Ezekiel 20, 34, as 


172 II. CORINTHIANS 6, 18. 


it is rendered in the Septuagint. The exhortation is founded 
on the preceding passage. God is most intimately related to 
his people. They are his temple. He dwells inthem. There- 
fore they are bound to keep themselves unspotted from the 
world. Their being God’s temple, his presence in them, and 
his regarding them as his people, depends upon their separa- 
tion from the world. For if any man love the world, the love 
of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2,15. In this whole con- 
text the apostle clothes his own exhortation to the Corinthians 
in the language of God himself, that they might see that what 
he taught was indeed the word of God. 


18. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall 
be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 


This is a continuation of the promise commenced in the 
preceding verse. God declares that he will not only receive 
into his favour those who regard themselves as his temple and 
keep themselves aloof from all contaminating associations with 
the wicked, but that he will be a father to them. It is not 
with the favour of a master to a servant that he will regard 
them, but with the favour which a father exercises to his sons 
and. daughters. This is the language of the Lord Almighty; 
of the omnipotent God. To be his sons and daughters is a 
dignity and blessedness before which all earthly honours and 
all worldly good disappear. It is doubtful what particular 
passage of the Old Testament the apostle had in his mind in 
this citation. Some think it was 2 Sam. 7,14, but there 
God merely says to David in reference to his promised seed, 
“T will be his father, and he shall be my son.” There is 
too little similarity in form, and too remote an analogy of 
sentiment, to render it probable that that passage was the 
one referred to. Is. 43, 6 is more in point. ‘“ Bring my 
sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth.” 
Here the people of God are said to be his sons and daughters ; 
which is all that the citation of the apostle asserts. The con- 
cluding verses of this chapter are an instructive illustration of 
the way in which the New Testament writers quote the Old, 
1. They often quote a translation which does not strictly ad- 
here to the original. 2. They often quote according to the 
sense and not according to the letter. 3. They often blend 
together different passages of Scripture, so as to give the sense 
not of any one passage, but the combined sense of several. 


II. CORINTHIANS 7. 173 


4. They sometimes give the sense not of any particular pas- 
sage or passages, but, so to speak, the general sense of Scrip- 
ture. That is, they quote the Scriptures as saying what is no- 
where found in so many words, but what nevertheless the 
Scriptures clearly teach. There is no such passage, for exam- 
ple, as that contained in this verse in the Old Testament, but 
the sentiment is often and clearly therein expressed. 5. They 
never quote as of authority any but the canonical books of the 
Old Testament. 


ia 
wre 


CHAPTER VII. 


An exhortation founded on what is said in the preceding chapter, v. 1. 
Paul’s consolation derived from the favourable account which he had 
received from Corinth, vs. 2-16. 


The effect produced on the church in Corinth by the apostle’s 
JSormer letter, and his consequent satisfaction and joy. 


Arter in vy. 1 exhorting them to live as became those to 
whom such precious promises had been given as he had just 
recited from the word of God, he in vs, 2. 3 repeats his desire 
before expressed, 6, 13, that they would reciprocate his ardent 
love. So far as he was concerned there was nothing in the 
way of this cordial reconciliation, He had not injured them, 
nor was he alienated from them. He had great confidence in 
them. His apprehensions and anxiety had been in a great 
measure removed by the account which he had received from 
Titus of the feelings of the Corinthians towards him, vs. 4-7, 
It is true that he did at one time regret having written that 
letter respecting the incestuous person; but he no longer re- 
gretted it, because he found that the sorrow which that letter 
occasioned was the sorrow of true repentance, redounding not 
to their injury, but to their good, vs. 8.9. It was not the 
sorrow of the world, but true godly sorrow, as was evident 
from its effects, vs. 10-12. Therefore the apostle was com- 
forted, and delighted to find how much Titus had been grati- 
fied by his visit to Corinth. All that the apostle had told him 


174 II. CORINTHIANS 7, 1. 


of the good dispositions of the Corinthians had proved to be 
true, vs. 13-16. 


1. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, 
Jet us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh 
and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 


This verse properly belongs to the preceding chapter. It 
is the appropriate conclusion of the exposition there made. 
The promises referred to are, Ist. Of the indwelling of God, 
6,16. 2d. Of his favour, v.17. 3d. That they should be his 
sons and daughters. Zherefore, says the apostle, having these 
promises of intimate association with God, and this assurance 
of his love, let us purify ourselves ; i. e. not merely keep our- 
selves pure by avoiding contamination, but, as already defiled, 


let us strive to become pure. ‘Though the work of purifica- — 


tion is so often referred to God as its author, Acts 15, 9. Eph. 
5, 26, this does not preclude the agency of his people. They 
are to work out their own salvation, because it is God who 
worketh in them both to will and to do. If God’s agency in 
sanctification does not arouse and direct ours; if it does not 
create the desire for holiness, and strenuous efforts to attain 
it, we may be sure that we are not its subjects. He is leaving 
us undisturbed in our sins. From all jilthiness of the flesh 
and spirit. All sin isa pollution. There are two classes of 
sin here recognized ; those of the flesh, and those of the spirit. 
By the former we are to understand those sins which defile 
the body, as drunkenness and debauchery; and by the latter 
those which affect only the soul, as pride and malice. By 
filthiness of the flesh, therefore, is not to be understood mere 
ceremonial uncleanness, nor the participation of the body in 
sinful acts, such as bowing down to an idol, or offering incense 
to false gods, but the desecration of the body as the temple 
of the Holy Ghost. See 1 Cor.6,19. Perfecting holiness. 
This expresses or indicates the way in which we are to purify 
_ ourselves. It is by perfecting holiness, The word ἐπιτελέω 
does not here mean simply to practise, but to complete, to 
carry on to perfection. Comp. 8, 6.11. Phil. 1,6. It is only 
by being completely or perfectly holy that we can attain the 
purity required of us as the temples of God. Zoliness (ἁγιω- 
σύνη, Rom. 1,3. 1 Thess. 3, 13) includes not only the negative 
idea of purity, or freedom from all defilement, but also, posi- 
tively, that of moral excellence. In the fear of God. ‘This 


— " 


II. CORINTHIANS 1, 2. 175 


is the motive which is to determine our endeavours to purify 
ourselves. It is not regard to the good of others, nor our own 
happiness, but reverence for God. We are to be holy, be- 
cause he is holy. | 


2. Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have 
corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man. 


Receive us ; literally, make room for us, i. e. in your heart, 
It is a repetition or resumption of the request, “Be ye also 
enlarged,” contained in 6,13. Then follow the reasons, at 
least those of a negative kind, why they should thus receive 
the apostle. We have wronged no man, (ἠδικήσαμεν.) we have 
treated no one unjustly. The expression is perfectly general. 
It may refer either to his conduct as a man, or to the exercise 
of his apostolical authority. There is nothing to limit it, or 
to determine the kind of injustice which had been laid to his 
charge, or which he here had specially in view. We have cor- 
rupted no man. The word φϑείρω, rendered to corrupt, means 
to injure or destroy, either in a moral or physical sense. It is 
used in a moral sense, 11,3. 1 Cor. 15,33. Eph. 4, 22, and in 
1 Cor. 3, 17, it is used first in the one sense and then in the 
other. “If any defile the temple of God, him shall God de- 
stroy.” Which sense should be adopted here is uncertain. 
Paul may mean to say that he had corrupted no one’s morals 
by his example or arts of seduction; or that he had corrupted 
no man’s faith by his false teaching; or that he had ruined no 
man as to his estate. The only reason for preferring the lat- 
ter interpretation is that the other words with which it is as- 
sociated express external injuries. There is no ground for the 
assumption that Paul refers to his former letter and intends to 


vindicate himself from the charge of injustice or undue severi- 


ty in his treatment of the incestuous person. That matter he 
has not yet adverted to; and the expressions here used are 
too general, and the last (“‘we have defrauded no man”) is 
inapplicable to that case. By defrauding he probably means 
acting unfairly in pecuniary affairs. The word πλεονεκτέω, in 
the New Testament, means either to have or take advan- 
tage of any one, 2,11, or, to make gain of, to defraud. The 
usage of the word and of its cognates is in favour of the 
latter sense. 12, 17.18. 1 Cor. 5,10. 6,10. Paul was special- 
ly careful to avoid all occasion of suspicion as to the disposi- 
tion of the money which he raised from the churches for the 
8 


176 II. CORINTHIANS 7, 3.4. 


_relief of the poor. 8,19. 20, and no doubt his enemies were 
ready enough to insinuate that he appropriated the money to 
his own use. He had therefore occasion to show that he had 
never made gain of them, that he had defrauded no man, 


3. I speak not (this) to condemn (you): for I have 
said before, that ye are in our hearts to die and live 
with (you). 


I speak not this to condemn you ; i. e. In defending my- 
self I do not mean to condemn you. This may mean either, 
‘In saying that I have wronged no man, I do not intend to 
imply that you have wronged me;’ or, ‘I do not mean to im- 
ply that you think of me so unjustly as to suppose that I have 
wronged, injured or defrauded any one.’ In other words, ‘I 
do not mean to question your love” or. What follows as- 
signs the reason or proof that he had no unkind feeling towards 
them which would lead him to condemnthem. J said before, 
Viz., in 6,12, that ye are in our hearts. That is, that I love 
you. He had said that his heart was enlarged towards them, 
which was proof enough that he did not now mean to upbraid 
them, 70 die and live with you, εἰς τὸ συναποϑανεῖν καὶ συζῆν, 
so as to die and live together. 'That is, ‘ Ye are so rooted in 
my heart that I would gladly live and die with you,’ or, ‘so 
that neither death nor life can separate us.” As remarked 
above, Paul’s love for the Corinthians seems to have been ex- 
traordinary, having something of the nature of a passion, be- 
ing more ardent than either their good qualities or their 
conduct towards him could account for. This is often the 
case in men of warm and generous feeling, who have frequent- 
ly to say, ‘The more abundantly we love, the less we are 
loved,’ 


4. Great (is) my boldness of speech toward you, 
great (is) my glorying of εἶν : I am filled with com- 
fort, | am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation. 


So far from having any disposition to upbraid or to re 
criminate, his heart was overflowing with far different feelings. 
He had not only confidence in them, he was proud of them; 
he was not only comforted, he was filled with exceeding joy. 


il Mie “ 


11. CORINTHIANS ἢ 4: 177. 


There is a climax here, as Calyin says: Gradatim procedit 
amplificando: plus enim est gloriari, quam securo et quieto 
esse animo: liberari vero a moerore ex multis afflictionibus 
concepto, utroque majus. His boasting of them was more 
than having confidence in them; and his rejoicing in the midst 
of his afflictions was more than being comforted. Great is 
my boldness of speech towards you. The word is παῤῥησία, 
which here, as in many other places, Eph. 3,12. Heb. 3, 6. 
1 John 2, 28, 3,21. 4,17. 5,14, instead of its primary sense 
of freedom of speech, expresses the idea of joyful confidence ; 
i, e. the state of mind from which freedom of utterance, or 
boldness of speech, flows. Paul means to say that so far from 
wishing to condemn the Corinthians he had joyful confidence 
inthem. And not only that, he adds, but, Great is my glo- 
rying of you, (καύχησις,) i. 6. my boasting over you. The ac- 
counts which the apostle had just received.of the state of 
things at Corinth, and especially of the effect produced by his 
former letter, had not only obliterated his feelings of anxiety 
and doubt concerning them, but made him boast of them, 
He gloried on their account. He was disposed to tell every 
one how well his dear-Corinthians had behaved. He thus, as 
it were, unconsciously lays bare the throbbings of his warm 
and generous heart. J am jilled with comfort, literally, * with 
the comfort,’ i. 6. the comfort to which he afterwards refers; 
or the comfort which his situation specially demanded. Such 
was the apostle’s anxiety about the effect of his former letter 
that, as he says, 2,12, “he had no rest in his spirit,” and 
therefore left Troas and hastened into Macedonia that he 
might meet Titus on his way back from Corinth. This anxie- 
ty was now all gone. His mind was at rest. He was full of 
consolation. Z am exceedingly joyful, ὑπερπερισσεύομαι τῇ 
xapa,) LT more than abound in joy, or the joy. Comp. Rom, 
5, 20. He was more than merely comforted, he was overflow- 
ing with ‘joy, and that too in spite of all the troubles which 
still pressed upon him, for he adds, im all our tribulation. 
The favourable accounts which Paul had received from Cor- 
inth, although they had removed some of the causes of his 
anxiety and suffering, left others in their full force. So that 
even when he wrote he was in great trouble. He therefore 
uses the present tense. ‘I am overflowing with joy in the 
midst of tribulation. Another proof that joy and sorrow may 
coexist in the mind. The martyr at the stake, in the midst 
of his agony, has often been filled with ecstatic joy. pate 


118 Il. CORINTHIANS 7, 5. 6. 


5. For, when we were come into Macedonia, our 
flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side ; 
without (were) fightings, within (were) fears. 


The connection is with the last clause of the preceding 
verse. I was comforted in tribulation, for also (καὶ yap) hav- 
ing come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest. Paul did 
not leave his troubles behind him in Troas, 2,12, but also 
in Macedonia his flesh had no rest. By flesh he does not 
mean his body, for the sufferings, which he immediately 
specifies, were not corporeal, but mental. It stands for his 
whole sensitive nature considered as frail. It is equivalent 
to saying, ‘my feeble nature had no rest... The same idea is 
expressed in 2,12 by saying, “I had no rest in my spirit.” 
But, so far from having rest, we were troubled (3A Bopevor, 
either ἤμεϑα is to be supplied, or a slight departure from the 
regular construction is to be assumed) on every side, ἐν παντί, 
in every way. This is amplified and explained by saying, 
without (were) fightings, within fears. Calvin and many 
other commentators understand within and without to mean 
within and without the church. Paul’s troubles were partly 
from his contentions with the Jews and heathen, and partly 
from his anxieties about the conduct and welfare of Christians. 
It is more common and natural to understand the distinction 
to be between inward and outward troubles. He had to con- 
tend with all kinds of outward difficulties, and was oppressed 
with an inward load of anxieties. ears, painful apprehen- 
sions Jest his labours should be vain, lest his enemies should at 
last prevail, lest his disciples should apostatize and perish, or 
the peace and purity of the church be disturbed. 


6. Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that 
are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus. 


The order of the words is inverted in the English version. 
In the Greek the order is, He who comforteth those who are 
cast down, comforted us, even God, by the coming of Titus. 
The fact that it is the characteristic work of God, or, so to 
speak, his office, to comfort the dejected, is thus made more 
prominent. All the miserable are thus encouraged, because 
they are miserable, to look to that God who proclaims himself 
as the comforter, It is to be remarked that the objects of his 
compassion, those who call forth the exercise of his power as 


II. CORINTHIANS ¥7, 7. 179 


a consoler, are described not by a term expressive of moral 
excellence, but by a word which simply designates them as 
sufferers. The ταπεινοί are properly simply the low, those who 
are in depressed circumstances. As, however, it is the ten- 
dency of such circumstances to render men fearful, or meek, 
or humble, the word often expresses one or the other of these 
states of mind. In 10,1 it means timid as opposed to bold ; 
in 1 Pet. 5,5, it is the opposite of proud. Here, however, it 
has its simple, proper sense—those who are low, i. e. cast 
down by suffering so as to be the proper objects of compassion. 
Luke 1,52. James 1,9. Ps. 18,27. Paul says God comforted 
him by the coming of Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth to 
know the state of the church there. 


7. And not by his coming only, but by the conso- 
lation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he 
told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fer- 
vent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more. 


It was not the pleasure of seeing Titus, so much as the in- 
telligence which he brought, which comforted the apostle. 
By the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, (ἐφ᾽ 
ὕμιν.) in reference to, or, as concerns you. The fact that Ti- 
tus was comforted in Corinth was a great consolation to the 
apostle, and he was made to share in the comfort which Titus 
had experienced, as the latter reported to him (ivayyéAAew, to 
bring back word, to recount, Acts 14, 27. 16, 38,) your earnest 
desire, i. 6. either your earnest desire to see me and to secure 
my approbation; or, your earnest desire to correct the evils 
existing among you. The former is to be preterred, both on 
account of the context and the signification of the word ἐπιπό- 
ϑησις, which means strong affection. Your mourning, (ὀδυρ- 
pos, i. 6. wailing, lamentation, Matt. 2, 18,) either, mournin 
on account of their sins, or on account of having offended an 
pained the apostle. The latter is the more probable on ac- 
count of what follows. Your fervent mind toward me, (ζῆλος 
ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.) zeal for me, i. e. the great interest which you took 
in me. Gal. 4,17.18. As the zeal of which the apostle 
speaks is expressly said to be a zeal of which he was the ob- 
ject, it is probable that the preceding words (earnest desire 
and mourning) express their feeling and conduct in reference 
to him. What was so specially gratifying to him was that in 


180 Il. CORINTHIANS 7, 8 


a church in which he had met with so much opposition, and 
in which the false teachers had exerted so great and so evil an — 
influence, the mass of the people proved themselves devoted 
to him. Devotion to Paul, however, involved devotion to the 
truth and holiness, just as zeal for the false teachers involved 
the opposite. So that I rejoiced the more, i. e. 1 had more 
joy than the mere coming of Titus and the satisfaction which 
he experienced in Corinth were able to impart, : 


8. For though I made you sorry with a letter, I 
do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive 
that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though (it 
were) but for a season. 


This and the following verses assign the reason why he 
rejoiced. It was because the letter which he had written 
them, although it made them sorry, yet did them good. 
Though I made you sorry (i. e. caused you grief) with a letter, 
rather, by the letter, i. 6. the letter which related to the incest- 
uous person. J do not repent, though I did repent. That is, 
he regretted writing as he had done until he learned through 
Titus the good effect his letter had toast Calvin says 
the word μεταμέλομαι must not be taken here to express re- 
pentance, for that would imply that his former letter was 
written under the influence of human fecling, and not by the 
direction of the Holy Spirit. He thinks that all Paul meant 
to say is, that he was grieved at having given the Corinthians 
— This, however, is not the meaning of the word. See 

att. 21, 29.32. We must accommodate our theory of in- 
spiration to the phenomena of Scripture, and not the phenome- 
na to our theory. Inspiration simply rendered its subject in- 
fallible in writing and speaking as the messenger of God. Paul 
might doubt whether he had in a given instance made a wise 
use of his infallibility, as he might doubt whether he had wise- 
ly exercised his power of working miracles. He never doubt- 
ed as to the truth of what be had written. There is another 
thing to be taken into consideration. Inspiration did not re- 
veal itself in the consciousness. It is perfectly conceivable 
that a man might be inspired without knowing it. Paul-was 
no doubt impelled by the Spirit to write his former epistle as 
well as divinely guided in writing; but all he was conscious 
of was his own thoughts and feelings. The believer is not 


II. CORINTHIANS ἢ, 8. 181 


conscious of the operations of grace, neither were the apostles 
conscious of inspiration. As the believer, however, may know 
that he is the subject of divine influence, so the apostles knew 
that they were inspired. But as the believer may doubt the 
wisdom of some of his holiest acts, so the apostles might 
doubt the wisdom of acts done under divine guidance. Such 
acts are always wise, but the agent may not always see their 
wisdom. . 
For I perceive that the same episile made you sorry. ‘This 
xives the reason why he at first regretted haying written. He 
new that his letter had excited much feeling in Corinth, and 
until he learned the nature and effects of that feeling, he re- 
pented having written. Though but for a season. That is, 
although the sorrow which he had occasioned was only tem- 
porary, yet it made him regret his former letter. This inter- 
pretation supposes a different punctuation of the passage from 
that found either in the common editions of the Greek text, 
or in the English version. It supposes that the proper place 
for the period or colon is after δ did not repent,” nh not 
after the following clause, “I did repent,” In this latter case 
the whole sense is different, and the latter clause of the verse 
(βλέπω γάρ) is connected with the first clause, and is intended 
to give the reason why he said he had made them sorry, and 
not the reason why he regretted having done so. The sense 
of the whole would then be, ‘I made you sorry ..... forI 
perceive from what I hear from ‘Titus, that my former letter 
did, althongh only for a while, grieve you” The next verse 
then begins a new sentence. But this is an unnatural con- 
struction; it requires the verse to be paraphrased in order to 
bring out the sense; and after all it amounts to little to say, 
1 made you sorry, for I see I made you sorry” The con- 
struction 15 simpler and the sense better if we put a colon or 
semi-colon after “I do not repent,” and make v. 9 a part of 
the same sentence. ‘Though I made you sorry I do not re- 
pent: although I did repent, (for I see that my letter made 
you sorry, though only for a time,) I now rejoice” The 
meaning is, ‘Though I did repent, I now rejoice Thus the 
passage is printed in the Greek of Srrer and Turerex’s Poly- 
glott, and, so far as the pointing is concerned, (omitting the 
marks of parenthesis,) in Tischendorf’s Greek Testament. In 
the Vulgate the same sense is expressed. ‘ Quoniam etsi 
contristavi vos in epistola, non me peenitet; et si peniteret, 


“4g2 11. CORINTHIANS 7, 9. 10. 


videns quod epistola illa (etsi ad horam) vos contristavit, nunc 
gaudeo, &c.” So also Luther. 


9. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but 
that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sor- 
ry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage 
by us in nothing. 


He rejoiced, not in their grief, but that their grief led them 
to repentance. A parent, when he sees a child mourning over 
his sins, sincerely rejoices, however much he sympathizes in 
his grief. Sorrowed unto repentance, («is μετάνοιαν.) i, 6. 
change of mind, sometimes in the restricted sense of the word 
mind, (or purpose,) as in Heb. 12,17; generally, in the com- 
prehensive sense of the word as including the principles and 
affections, the whole soul, or inward life. Matt. 3,8. Luke 5, 
32. Acts 5,31. Repentance, therefore, in its religious sense, 
is not merely a change of purpose, but includes a change of 
heart which leads to a turning from sin with grief and hatred 
thereof unto God. Such is the repentance here intended, as 
appears from what follows. or (this shows they sorrowed 
unto repentance) they were made sorry (they grieved) after a 
godly sort, (κατὰ ϑεόν,) 1. 6. in a manner agreeable to the mind 
and will of God; so that God approved of their sorrow. He 
saw that it arose from right views of their past conduct. 
That, (iva, in order that,) as expressing the design of God in 
making their sorrow a sorrow unto repentance. Ye might 
receive damage by us in nothing. God had so ordered that 
Paul’s letter, instead of producing any injury, had resulted in 
the greatest spiritual good. 


10. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to sal- 
vation not to be repented of; but the sorrow of the 
world worketh death. 


The connection is with the last clause. ‘ Ye were not in- 
jured by us, for the sorrow we occasioned worked repent- 
ance.’ Sorrow in itself is not repentance; neither is remorse, 
nor self-econdemnation, nor self-loathing, nor external reforma- 
tion. These all are its attendants or consequences; but re- 
pentance itself (μετάνοια) is a turning from sin to holiness, from 
a state of sin to a holv state. It is a real change of heart. It 


II. CORINTHIANS 7, 10. 183 


is a change of views, feelings and purposes, resulting in a 
change of life. Godly sorrow worketh repentance, 1. 6. that 
sorrow on account of sin, which arises from proper apprehen- 
sions of God and of our relation to him, necessarily leads to 
that entire change in the inward life which is expressed by 
the word repentance, and which is conneeted with salvation, 
It is not the ground of our salvation; but it is a part of it and 
a necessary condition of it. Those who repent are saved; the 
impenitent perish. Repentance therefore is unto salvation. 
Comp. Acts 11,18. It is that inward change in which salva- 
tion argely consists. Never to be repented of. This may be- 
long either to the repentance or to salvation. If to the latter, 
the word ἀμεταμέλητος may be taken in the sense of unchange- 
able. See Rom. 11, 29. So the Vulgate explains it, ad salutem 
stabilem ; or it may mean not to be regretted. Mepentance 
leads to a salvation which no one ever will regret. So Luther 
and many of the moderns. The position of the words is in 
favour of connecting “not to be repented of” with “ salva- 
tion.” Had Paul intended the other connection, he would 
have probably said εἰς μετάνοιαν ἀμετανοήτον, and not have 
chosen (ἀμεταμέλητον) a word of an entirely different root, 
Still, as “not to be repented of” seems to be an unsuitable epi- 
thet when applied to salvation, the majority of commentators 
prefer the other connection, and μέτα νὰ the apostle as desig- 
nating true repentance as that which no one will regret not- 
withstanding the sorrow with which it is attended. But the 
sorrow of the world worketh death. By the sorrow of the 
world is not meant worldly sorrow, i. e. sorrow arising out of 
worldly considerations, but the sorrow of men of the world, 
In other words, κόσμου is the genitive of the subject, not a 
qualifying genitive. ‘*The world” means men, the mass of 
mankind as distinguished from the church. 1 Cor. 1, 20. Gal. 
4,3. John 7, 7. 14,7. &c. What therefore the apostle means 
is the sorrow of unrenewed men, the sorrow of the unsanctified 
heart. Of this sorrow, as opposed to godly sorrow, he says, 
it works death, not physical death, nor specifically eternal 
death as opposed to salvation, but evil in the general sense 
of the werd The effects of godly sorrow are salutary; the 
effects of worldly sorrow (the sorrow of worldly men) are eyil. 
It is a great mistake to suppose that the natural tendency of 
pain and sorrow is to good. They tend rather to excite re- 

ellion against God and all evil feelings. It is only when they 
are sanctified, i, 6. when they are experienced by the holy, and 


"184 II. CORINTHIANS 7%, 11. 


are made by the Spirit of God to call into exercise the resig 
nation, patience and faith of the sufferer, that they bring forth 
fruit unto righteousness. The natural element of holiness is 
happiness, and misery is the natural element of sin. They 
stand severally in the relation both of cause and effect. The 
more miserable you make a bad man, the worse you make 
him. The wicked are said to curse God while they gnaw 
their tongues with pain, and they repent not of their deeds. 
Rev. 16, 10. 11. 


11. For behold this self-same thing, that ye sor- 
rowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought 
in you, yea, (what) clearing of yourselves, yea, (what) 
indignation, yea, (what) fear, yea, (what) vehement de- 


sire, yea, (what) zeal, yea, (what) revenge! In all 


(things) ye have approved yourselves to be clear im 
this matter. 


The question may be asked whether Paul means here to 
describe the uniform effects of genuine repentance, so as to 
furnish a rule by which each one may judge of his own expe- 
rience. This, to say the least, is not the primary design of 
the passage. If it affords such a rule it is only incidentally. 
The passage is historical. It describes the effects which godly 
sorrow produced in the Corinthian church. It shows how 
the church felt and acted in reference to a specific offence, 
when roused to a sense of its enormity. or, behold! The 
connection is with what precedes. ‘ Godly sorrow is salutary, 
for, see what effects it wrought for you” TZhis self-same 
thing, i. e. this very thing, viz. being sorry after a godly 
sort. What carefulness it wrought in you (ipiv, for you, for 
your advantage). Carefulness, (σπουδήν,) literally, haste ; then 
the inward feeling which leads to haste; then any outward 
manifestation of that earnestness of feeling. Here it means 
earnest solicitude as opposed both to indifference and neglect. 
The Corinthians had strangely allowed a grievous sin, com- 
mitted by a church-member, to pass unnoticed, as a matter 
of no importance. The first effect or manifestation of their 
godly sorrow was an earnest solicitude on the subject, and a 
desire to have the evil corrected; the very opposite of their 
former indifference. It is so in all cases of repentance. Sins 


II. CORINTHIANS 4%, 11. 185 


which had been regarded as of little account, are apprehended 
in their true character; and deep feeling takes the place of 
unconcern. Yea, what clearing of yourselves. The particle 
ἀλλά is here and through the verse rendered yea. [0 is used, 
as in 1, 9, to indicate a gradation—stil/ more. ‘ Not only so- 
licitude, but moreover clearing of yourselves, (ἀπολογίαν.) 
Their sorrow led them earnestly to apologize for the sin 
which they had committed. Not to extenuate their guilt, but 
to acknowledge it and to seek forgiveness. The apology for 
sin to which repentance leads, includes acknowledgment and 
deprecation, This apology was addressed to the apostle. 
They endeavoured to regain his good opinion. Moreover, 
indignation, either at the offence or at themselves that such 
an offence should have been allowed. They felt angry at 
themselves for their past misconduct. This is one of the most 
marked experiences of every sincere penitent. ‘The unreason- 
ableness, the meanness, the wickedness of his conduct rouse 
his indignation; he desires to seek vengeance on himself. 
Bengel says the word ἀγανάκτησις is chosen with special pro- 
PHY, as it denotes a pain of which a man has the cause in 

imself, What fear. Whether fearful apprehension of God’s 
displeasure, or fear of the apostle, depends on the context, 
The idea is expressed indefinitely. Their repentance was at- 
tended by fear of punishment. Doubtless the two sentiments 
were mingled in the minds of the Corinthians, They had a 
fear of the wrath of God, and at the same time.afear.of the 
apostle’s coming among them displeased and armed. with the 
spiritual power which belonged to his office. The context is 
in favour of making the latter the prominent idea., What ve- 
hement desire, either for the correction of the evil complained ἡ 
of, or for the apostle’s presence and approbation. In the lat- 
ter case this clause is'a modification of the preceding. It was 
not so much fear of the apostle as an earnest and affectionate 
desire towards and for him, that their godly sorrow had pro- 
duced. As in v. 7 Titus had repeated to the apostle the 
earnest desire (ἐπιπόϑησιν, the same word as here) of the Co- 
rinthians for him, it is probable that the same is here meant. 
What zeal. In vy. 7 the zeal spoken of is limited or explained 
by the words (ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ) for me. Without that addition they 
may be so understood here; zeal or zealous interest in behalf 
of the apostle manifested by their taking sides with him. The 
connection, however, with what follows favours the assump- 


tion that here the zeal meant is that of which the offender was 


186 11. CORINTHIANS ἢ, 12. 


the object. Zeal for his reformation or punishment What 
revenge, (ἐκδίκησις,) vindictive justice. One of the sentiments 
which godly sorrow had aroused in them was the sense of 
justice, the moral judgment that sin ought to be punished. 
This is an instinctive feeling, one belonging to our moral con- 


stitution, and therefore a revelation of the nature and will of 


God. The ground of the punishment of sin is not expediency, 


nor is it primarily the benefit of the offender, but the satisfac- 


tion of justice, or the inherent evil of sin which from its own 
nature, and apart from the eyil consequences of impunity, de- 


serves punishment. Of the six particulars introduced by 


(ἀλλά) yea in this verse, according to Bengel, Meyer and 
others, ** clearing of yourselves” and “indignation ” relate to 
the feelings of the Corinthians towards themselves ; “ fear” and 


“vehement desire ” to their feelings towards the apostle ; aud 
“zeal” and “revenge” to their feelings towards the offender, 


According to Olshausen, the “apology” relates to their con- 
duct; the “indignation” to their feelings in view of the crime 
which had been committed; the “fear” to God’s displeasure 5 
the “desire” and “zeal” to their feelings towards the apostle, 
and “revenge” the consequence of all the preceding, 

In all things, (ἐν zavri,) in every respect, or, in every 
point of view. Ye have proved yourselves, (συνεστήσατε,) you 
have set yourselves forth, shown yourselves to be (Gal. 2, 18) 
clear, (ayvous,) pure, free from guilt. Jn this matter, or, (with- 
out the ἐν, which the older MSS. omit,) as to the matter. The 
Corinthians proved themselves to be free from the sin of ap- 
proving or in any way countenancing the crime in question. 
‘Their sin consisted in not more promptly excluding the of 
fender from their communion. This whole passage, however, 
is instructive as presenting a clear exhibition of the intimate 
nature of church fellowship. One member committed an of- 
fence. The whole church repents. The godly sorrow which 
the apostle describes was the sorrow of the church. The ef- 
fects which that sorrow wrought were common to the church 
as such. That believers are one body in Christ Jesus, and 
“every one members one of another,” so that “if one member 
suffers all the members suffer with it,” is matter of actual 
experience. 


12. Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, (I did it) 
not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his 


11. CORINTHIANS ¥7, 12. 187 


cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in 
the sight of God might appear unto you. 


Wherefore. That is, because my letter has produced such 
results. The effects produced by his letter was the end he 
had in view in writing it. Zhough I wrote to you, i.e. al- 
though I interfered with your affairs. His motive in writing 
he states first negatively and then positively. It was neither 
for the sake of him who did wrong, nor for him who suffered 
wrong. His primary object was neither to have the offender 
punished, nor to secure justice being done to the injured 

rty, viz., the father whose wife the son had married. This 

is the common and natural interpretation. As, however, 
nothing is elsewhere said of the father, and as the form of ex- 
pression in 1 Cor. 5, 1, (γυναῖκα ἔχειν, to marry,) seems to im- 
ly that the father of the offender was dead, since otherwise, 
it is said, there could have been no marriage in the case, vari- 
ous other explanations of this passage have been proposed. 
Some say that he “ who suffered wrong” was the apostle him- 
self; others, as Bengel, say it was the Corinthians, the singu- 
lar being taken for the plural. Others, as Neander, Billroth, 
&e., say that ἀδικηϑέντος is neuter, the wrong deed ; so that 
the meaning is, ‘ Neither for the offender nor for the offence.’ 
But these explanations are all unnatural and unnecessary, 
The ordinary interpretation is the only one which the words 
suggest, and what is said in 1 Cor. 5 is perfectly consistent 
with the assumption that the father of the offender was still 
alive. The positive statement of his object in writing is that 
our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you. 
The first question concerning this clause relates to the text. 
Instead of ἡμῶν (our), Lachmann, Meyer and others read ὑμῶν 
(your). This latter reading is followed by Calvin and Luther 
as well as by many of the modern commentators. As the ex- 
ternal authorities are nearly equally divided, the decision rests 
mainly on internal evidence. In favour of the common text 
is first, the consideration that the manifestation of his love or 
care for them is elsewhere said to have been his motive in 
writing his former letter, 2,4; and, secondly, the words πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς are more easily explained. ‘Our care for you might ap- 
pear unto you,’ is plain. But if ὑμῶν is read these words give 
difficulty. They must be rendered (apud vos) “with you.” 
‘Your care for us might be manifest with (i. e. among) you, 
That is, that the zeal which you have for us might be brought 


188 II. CORINTHIANS 7, 18. 


out so as to be known by yourselves. This, however, would 
be more naturally expressed by ἑν ὑμῖν or ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, among 
yourselves. Besides, the words “before God,” as involving 
an appeal to the divine omniscience, are more in place if he is 
speaking of his own zeal, than if speaking of theirs. The im- 
mediate context, it must be admitted, is in favour of this lat- 
ter reading. The apostle had been describing the effects of 
his letter, dwelling with great satisfaction on the feelings 
towards himself which that letter had called forth. It was 
natural for him therefore to say that his object in writing was 
to bring out this manifestation, and thus reveal themselves to 
themselves as well as to him. With this also agrees what he 
says in 4, 9, “To this end also did I write, that I might know 
the proot of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.” ‘Still 
on the whole the common text gives the better sense. In 
either case the words πρὸς ὑμᾶς depend on φανερωϑῆναι, might 


be manifest towards (or among) you.” So also do the words 


ἐνώπιον τοῦ ϑεοῦ, “that our care for you might be manifested 
before God,” i. e. in his sight, as what he could approve of. 
In our version these words are connected with our care. 
“Our care for you in the sight of God.” The same sense is 
expressed by the Vulgate; “ad manifestandam sollicitudinem 
nostram, qu habemus pro vobis coram Deo.” According to 
the Greek the natural construction is, “‘To manifest in the 
sight of God our care for you.” 


13. Therefore we were comforted in your comfort : 
yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of 
Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all. 


Therefore, i, e. because his letter had led them to repent- 
ance. We were comforted in your comfort, (ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει 
ὑμῶν.) on account of your consolation. This, however, does 
not suit the state of the case. Paul was comforted by their 
repentance, not by their consolation. To meet this difficulty 
some make ὑμῶν the genitive of the source; so that the sense 
would be, ‘We were comforted with the consolation derived 
from you.’ The great majority of modern editors read ἡμῶν 
instead of ὑμῶν, and put a stop after παρακεκλήμεϑα. This 
gives a far better sense, ‘Theretore we have been comforted : 
and besides (ἐπί) our consolation, we have rejoiced exceeding- 
ly in the joy of Titus? Paul had not only the consolation de- 


II. CORINTHIANS 7, 14.15. 189 


rived from their repentance, but in addition to that, he was 
delighted to find Titus so full of joy. Compare v. 7. The 
Vulgate has the same reading and pointing. Ideo consolati 
sumus. In consolatione autem nostra abundantius magis ga- 
visi sumus super gaudio Titi. Because his spirit was re- 
Sreshed by you all. This is the reason of his joy. Titus 
rejoiced because his spirit was refreshed, (avaréravra,) derived 
rest, according to the comprehensive scriptural sense of the 
word “ rest.” 


14. For if I have boasted any thing to him of you, 
Iam not ashamed; but as we spake all things to you 
in truth, even so our boasting, which (I made) beiore 
Titus, is found a truth. 


This is the reason why Paul was so rejoiced that Titus was 
satisfied with what he saw in Corinth. Paul had boasted to 
him of the Corinthians. He had predicted that he would find 
them obedient, and ready to correct the evils adverted to in 
his former letter. Had these predictions proved false, he 
would have been mortified,—ashamed, as he says; but as they 
were more than fulfilled, he naturally rejoiced. But as we 
tas all things to you in truth. No doubt in allusion to the 
charge of want of adherence to the truth made against him 
by the false teachers, to which he refers above, 1,17.18. As 
he spoke the truth to the Corinthians, so he spoke the truth 
ofthem. We spake in truth, (ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ,.) truly. So our 
boasting before Titus (ἡ ἐπὶ Tirov) is found a truth, (ἀλήϑεια 
ἐγενήϑη,) has become truth. Though it is done incidentally, 
yet the revelation to the Corinthians that Paul had spoken of 
them in terms of commendation must have convinced them 
of his love. This was one of the objects, as appears from the 
whole epistle, he had much at heart. 


15. And his inward affection is more abundant 
toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of 
you all, how with fear and trembling ye received 
him. 

A continuation of the sentence begun in the former verse. 
Paul informs the Corinthians that Titus’s love for them was 


190 II. CORINTHIANS 7, 16. 


greater now than when he was with them. The recollection 
of their good conduct warmed his heart towards them. His 
inward affection, literally, his bowels, which in the Scriptures 
is a figurative expression for love, compassion, or any other 
tender affection. Whilst he remembereth, literally, rememober- 
ing, i.e. because he remembers. Your obedience, viz., towards 
him, as appears from what follows. //ow with fear and trem- 
bling ye received him. “Fear and trembling” is a common 
scriptural expression for reverence, or solicitous anxiety lest 
we should fail in doing all that is required of us. 1 Cor. 2, 3. 
Eph. 6, 5. 


16. I rejoice, therefore, that I have confidence in 
you in all (things). 


This is the conclusion of the whole matter. The first seven 
chapters of the epistle are intimately connected. They all re- 
late to the state of the congregation at Corinth and to Paul’s 
relation to the people there. The eighth and ninth chapters 
form a distinct division of the epistle. Here, therefore, we 
haye the conclusion of the whole preceding discussion. ‘The 
result of the long conflict of feeling in reference to the Corin- 
thians as a church, was the full restoration of confidence. I 
rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things, (ἐν παντί, in 
every thing). JI have confidence in you, (ϑαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν.) I have 
good courage, am full of hope and confidence, 5,6. Heb. 13, 6. 
As Jappéw is not elsewhere constructed with ἐν, Meyer says 
the meaning is, ‘I am of good courage, through you, If this 
objection to the common explanation be considered of weight, 
ἐν had better be rendered before. “1 stand full of confidence 
before you, 1. 6. in your presence.” 1 Cor. 14,11. The sense, 
however, expressed by the common interpretation is better, 


II. CORINTHIANS 8. 191 
CHAPTER VIII. 


The extraordinary liberality of the Macedonians, vs. 1-6. Exhortation to 
the Corinthians to follow the example of their Macedonian brethren, vs. 
7-16. Commendation of Titus for his zeal in promoting the collection 
of contributions for the poor, and of the other brethren who were to 
accompany him to Corinth, vs, 17-24. 


Exhortation to liberality to the poor. 


To this subject the apostle devotes this and the following 
chapter. e begins by setting before the Corinthians the 
liberality of the churches in Macedonia. They, in the midst 
of great affliction and of extreme poverty, had exceeded their 
ability in the contributions which they had made for the 
saints, vs. 1-3. And this not by constraint or in obedience to 
earnest entreaties on the part of the apostle; but on the con- 
trary, it was they who besought him to receive and take 
charge of their alms, v. 4. Liberality to the poor was only a 
part of what they did; they devoted themselves to the Lord, 
v. 5. The conduct of the Macedonians led the apostle to ex- 
hort Titus, as he had already begun the work, to carry it on 
to completion in Corinth, v. 6. 
He begs them, therefore, to add this to all their other 
pears, ν. 7. This was a matter of advice, not of command. 
e was induced to give this exhortation because others had 
evinced so much zeal in this matter, and because he desired 
them to prove the sincerity of their love. What was all they 
could do for others, compared to what Christ had done for 
them, vs. 8.9. The exercise of liberality was a good to them, 
provided their pe found expression in corresponding 
acts, vs. 10.11. The disposition, not the amount of their con- 
tributions, was the main thing, v. 12. What the apostle 
wished was that there might be some approximation to 
equality among Christians, that the abundance of one may 
supply the wants of another, vs. 13-15. 

e thanks God who had inspired Titus with so much zeal 
on this subject, vs. 16.17. With him he had sent a brother 
who had not only the approbation of the churches, but had 
been chosen for the very purpose of taking charge of the con- 
tributions in connection with the apostle, vs.18.19. Paul was 
determined to avoid all occasion of reproach, and therefore he 
associated others with himself in the charge of the money in- 

9 


192 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 1: 2. 


trusted to him, vs. 20. 21. With those already mentioned he 
sent another brother of approved character and great zeal, v. 
22. Therefore if any one inquired who Titus was, they might 
answer, He was Paul’s companion and fellow-labourer ; or whd 
those brethren were, they might say, They were the messen- 
gers of the churches, and the glory of Christ. Let the church 
therefore prove their love and justify his boasting of them, 
vs. 23. 24. 


1. Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the 
grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia. 


Moreover (δέ) marks the transition to a new subject. We 
do you to wit, (γνωρίζομεν,) ‘we cause you to know.’ The 
word to wit, (Anglo-Saxon, Witan; German, Wissen,) to 
know, and the cognate words, Wis and Wot, are nearly obso- 
lete, although they occur frequently in our version. The 
grace of God, the divine favour. The liberality of the Corin- 
thians was due to the operation of the grace of God. The 
sacred writers constantly recognize the fact that the freest 
and most spontaneous acts of men, their inward states and 
the outward manifestations of those states, when good, are 
due to the secret influence of the Spirit of God, which 
eludes our consciousness. The believer is most truly self-de- 
termined, when determined by the grace of God. Bestowed 
on, (δεδομένην ἐν.) “ given in,” 1. 6. given so that it isin, See 
1,22. “Given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” Inv. 
16 of this chapter, διδόντι ἐν is rendered “put into.” The 
churches of Macedonia. Under the Romans Macedonia in- 
cluded the whole of the northern provinces of Greece. The 
churches of that region founded by the apostle were those of 
Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berwa,. Of the extraordinary 
liberality of those churches the epistles of Paul furnish numer- 
ous intimations. 11,9. Phil. 2,25. 4, 15.18. 


2. How that, in a great trial of affliction, the abun- 
dance of their joy, and their deep poverty, abounded 
unto the riches of their liberality. 


A somewhat condensed sentence, meaning, as some say, 
that in the midst of their afflictions their joy, and in the midst 
of their poverty, their liberality abounded. But this brings 
into view two graces, joy in affliction, and liberality in poverty, 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 2. ° 193 


whereas the context calls for only one. The meaning rather 
is, that notwithstanding their afflictions, their joy and their — 
poverty abounded to their liberality. This the grammatical 
structure of the passage requires. ow that (ὅτι) ; the con- 
nection is with the verb in the preceding verse, ‘I cause you 
to know that, ὥς. Jn a great trial of affliction, i. 6. in afflic- 
tions which were a great trial (δοκιμή), i. e. a test of their sin- 
cerity and devotion. These afflictions were either those 
which they shared in common with their fellow-citizens, aris- 
ing out of their social condition, or they were peculiar to them 
as Christians, arising from persecution. In writing to the 
Thessalonians, Paul reminds them that they had received the 
word in much affliction. 1,6. 2,14. Comp. Acts 16, 20. 17, 5. 
The abundance of their joy ; i. e. the joy arising from the 
pardon of their sins and the favour of God, which in 1 Thess, 
1, 6, he calls the joy of the Holy Ghost, was abundant. That 
is, it rose above their sorrows, and produced in them the ef- 
fect of which he afterwards speaks. And their deep poverty, 
(ἡ xara βάϑους πτωχεία,) their abject poverty, or poverty down 
to the depth. Abounded unto, i. 6. manifested itself as abun- 
dant in relation to. The same verb (ἐπερίσσευσεν) belongs to 
both the preceding nouns, “joy” and “ poverty,” but in. a 
somewhat different sense. Their joy abounded unto their 
liberality, because it produced it. The effect proved the joy 
to be abundant. Their poverty abounded unto their liberali- 
ty, because it was seen to be great in relation to it. Their 
liberality made their poverty, by contrast, appear the greater. 
Unto the riches, (πλοῦτος,) a favourite word with Paul, which 
he often uses in the sense of abundance. Rom. 2, 4, “ Riches 
of his goodness,” for abundant goodness, Eph. 1, 7, “ Riches 
of his grace,” for his abundant grace; 1, 18, “ Riches of his 
glory,” for abundant glory, ὥς. Of their liberality, ἁπλότης, 
which is properly the opposite of duplicity, or double-minded- 
ness, and, therefore, singleness of heart, simplicity, sincerity. 
Eph. 6,5. Col, 3,22. The Scriptures, however, often use a 
generic term for a specific one, as glory for wisdom, or mer¢y, 
or power, which are different forms of the divine glory. So 
here the general term for right-mindedness is put for liberali- 
ty, which is a specific form or manifestation of the generic 
yirtue. Comp. 9,11. Rom. 12,8. In reference to the pover- 
ty of the Macedonian churches, Mr, Stanley, in his Commen- 
tary on this Epistle, appropriately quotes a passage from Dr, 
Arnold’s Roman Commonwealth, in which he says, “The 


194 II]. CORINTHIANS 8, 3-5. 


condition of Greece in the time of Augustus was one of deso. 
lation and distress. It had suffered severely by being the 
seat of the successive civil wars between Czesar and Pompey, 
between the Triumvirs and Brutus and Cassius, and lastly, 
between Augustus and Antonius. Besides, the country had 
never recovered from the long series of miseries which had 
succeeded and accompanied its conquest by the Romans; and 
between those times and the civil contest between Pompey 
and Cesar, it had been again exposed to all the evils of war 
when Sylla was disputing the possession of it with the general 
of Mithridates.... The provinces of Macedonia and Achaia, 
when they petitioned for a diminution of their burdens, in the 
reign of Tiberius, were considered so deserving of compassion 
that they were transferred for a time from the jurisdiction of 
the Senate to that of the Emperor, (as involving less heavy 
taxation.) ” 


3—5. For to (their) power, I bear record, yea, and 
beyond (their) power, (they were) willing of themselves ; 
praying us with much entreaty, that we would receive 
the gift, and (take upon us) the fellowship of the min- 
istermg to the saints. And (this they did,) not as we 
hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and 
unto us by the will of God. 


These verses must be taken together on account of the 
grammatical construction. Wherever the reader of the Eng- 
lish version sees the frequent use of words in Italies, he ma 
conclude there is some difficulty or obscurity in the original, 
which the translators endeavour to explain by additions to the 
text. In these verses there are no less than five such interpo- 
lations; three of which materially affect the sense, viz., the 
words, they were, take upon us, and, this they did. The first 
point is to determine the text. The words δέξασϑαι ἡμᾶς are 
omitted in the great majority of the MSS. versions and 
Fathers, and seem very much like an explanatory gloss, or an 
interpolation analogous to the explanations in Italics so com- 
mon in our version. They are, therefore, rejected by Gries- 
bach, and by almost all editors since his time, Their insertion 
alters the sense materially. If these words are read, Paul 
represents the Macedonian Christians as begging him to re- 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 3-5. 195 


ceive their contributions and to take upon him the distribution 
of them. If they are omitted, the sense is, they begged to 
be permitted to contribute. Granting, however, that these 
words should be omitted, the construction of the passage is 
doubtful. Stanley says it is “a sentence which has been en- 
tirely shattered in passing through the apostle’s mind.” He 
proposes to reduce it to order in the same way that Bengel 
does, who, however, thinks that, so far from the sentence be- 
ing shattered, every thing is smooth and easy. He says the 
word ἔδωκαν sustains the structure of the whole passage; 
aiJaiperot and δεόμενοι are its nominatives ; χάριν, κοινωνίαν and 
ἑαυτοὺς are its objects. The sense then is, ‘Of their own ac- 
cord, beyond their ability and with many prayers they gave 
not their gifts only as a contribution to the saints, but them- 
selves to the Lord and to us” Any one, however, who looks 
at the Greek sees that it is very unnatural to make χάριν de- 
pend on ἔδωκαν; it belongs to δεόμενοι, The construction, 
therefore, adopted by Fritzsche, Billroth, Meyer and others is, 
at least as to that point, to be preferred. Meyer says that to 
ἔδωκαν there are four limiting or qualifying clauses attached. 
They gave, 1. Beyond their power; 2. Of their own motion; 
3. Praying to be allowed to give; and 4. Not as we expected, 
but themselves. De Wette and many others relieve the 
harshness of this construction so far as the last clause is con- 
cerned by making the sentence end with the fourth verse, and 
supplying ἔδωκαν inv. 3. ‘They gave beyond their power, 
of their own accord, begging to be allowed to take part in 
the contribution to the saints. And beyond our expectation 
they gave themselves to the Lord.” 

As to the connection, ὅτι is evidently equivalent to γάρ, as 
these verses are the proof of what is said in v. 2. The libe- 
rality of the Macedonian churches was great, for to their 
power, (xara δύναμιν.) according to their ability, I bear testi- 
mony, and beyond their power (ὑπὲρ in the common text, in 
the critical editions παρὰ ale pat Here the word ἔδωκαν is 
implied. ‘They gave beyond their ability, αὐϑαίρετοι, self- 
moved, 1. 6. spontaneously, without any suggestion or excite- 
ment from me. From 9, 2, it appears that Paul had boasted 
to the Macedonians that Achaia (the Corinthians) was ready 
a year ago, and that this had excited their zeal. These two 
representations are perfectly consistent. In detailing the sue- 
cess of the gospel in Corinth the apostle would naturally refer 
to the liberality of the disciples. tt was the simple mention 


196 1. CORINTHIANS 8, 3-5. 


of this fact which led the Macedonians, without any exhorta 
tion from the apostle, but of their own accord, to make the 
contribution of which he here speaks. Our translators by the 
insertion of the words they were alter the sense of this verse, 
Thev make the apostle say, ‘They were willing beyond their 
power.” Whereas what he says is, ‘They gave spontaneously 
beyond their power.” The word ἔδωκαν, they gave, though 
not expressed until the end of the passage, is clearly implied 
from the beginning. 

Praying us with much entreaty. The thing for which the 
Macedonians so earnestly prayed was, according to the re- 
ceived text and our version, that the apostle would receive 
their alms and take upon him the distribution of them. But 
by common consent the words δέξασϑαι ἡμᾶς (that we would 
receive) should be omitted, and there is nothing in the Greek 
to answer to the interpolated words take upon us. The 
words are, δεόμενοι ἡμῶν τὴν χάριν καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν, begging of 
us the favour and fellowship, (or participation,) i. 6. the favour 
of a participation. The latter word explains the former; the 
favour they asked was that of taking part in the ministry to 
the saints, The word διακονία, ministry, service, is often used 
in the sense of aid or relief. 9, 1.18. Acts 6,1. 11,29. Here, 
according to some, the sentence ends. ‘The more common 
interpretation supposes καὶ od καϑὼς ἠλπίσαμεν to be a new 
modification of the principal idea, “and not as we expected,” 
i, e. a moderate contribution, but they first gave their own 
selves to the Lord and to us, This does not mean that they 
gave themselves before they gave their alms; but they gave 
themselves first to the Lord, then to us; πρῶτον belongs to 
κυρίῳ and not to ἔδωκαν, First does not mean first in time, 
but in importance and order. Compare Acts 15, 28. Ex- 
odus 14,31. The offering was immediately and directly 
to Christ, and subordinately to the apostle. By giving 
themselves to the Lord the apostle means that not con- 
tent with giving their money they had given themselves; 
made an entire dedication of all they had and all they were 
to their divine Master. This was far beyond his expec. 
tations. ‘To understand this expression as indicating that 
devotion to Christ was the motive which determined their 
liberality is inconsistent with the context. Their inward de- 
votion to Christ was not a thing to take the apostle by sur- 

rise; that was involved in their profession of the gospel. 
hat surpassed his expectations was, that their liberality led 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 6. 197 


to the gift not of their money only but of themselves. Some 
say that this means that they offered themselves to go to Cor- 
inth or elsewhere to collect money for the poor. But the 
sense is fuller and simpler as above explained. By the will 
of God. That is, the will of God was the cause of their giv- 
ing themselves to the Lord, &e. It is (διὰ ϑελήματος, not κατὰ 
“έλημα) by, not according to, the will of God. 


6. Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had 


begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace 
also. 


Insomuch (εἰς τὸ wapaxaX.) so that we were induced to ex- 
hort Titus, Paul, 1 Cor. 16,1, had urged the Corinthians to 
make collections for the poor saints. Titus visited Corinth 
after that letter was written and made a beginning in this 
work. When Paul came to Macedonia and found how liberally 
the churches there had contributed, he urged Titus to return 
to Corinth and complete what he had so successfully begun. 
The exhortation therefore addressed to Titus, of which the 
epoaile here speaks, was not the exhortation given him before 
the visit from which he had just returned, but that which he 

ve him in reference to a renewed visit yet to be made. 

tead therefore of the rendering, Z desired Titus, it would 
would be plainer to translate, 7 have desired him. That (iva, 
not in order that, according to the usual force of the particle, 
but that, as expressing the contents of the request), as he had 
begun, (προενήρξατο, a word which occurs nowhere but in this 
chapter,) had begun before. This may mean, ‘had already 
begun,’ 1. 6. begun before the time of Paul’s writing ; or, had 
begun before the Macedonians made their collections, The 
latter is the more probable meaning, since, as appears from 
v. 10, the Corinthians had commenced this work before the 
Macedonian churches had moved in the business. So he 
would also finish, i. e. either in the sense of bringing a given 
work to an end, Heb. 9, 6, or of perfecting an inward grace, 
7,1. Jn you, εἰς ὑμᾶς, in relation to, or, for you. Matt. 10, 10. 
This grace also ; χάριν may here mean either good work, or, 
grace, in the ordinary sense of the word. The connection 
with the following verse is in favour of understanding it in 
the latter sense. It was a disposition of the mind that Titus 
was exhorted to bring into full exercise among the Corinthi- 


198 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 7. 


ans. The grace spoken of was something which belongs to 
the same category with faith, knowledge, and love. 


7. Therefore, as ye abound in every (thing, in) 
faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and (in) all dil- 
gence, and (in) your love to us, (see) that ye abound in 
this grace also. 


From this verse onward to v. 16 the apostle urges on the 
Corinthians the duty of liberality. 1. Because it was necessa- 
ry to the completeness and harmony of their Christian charac- 
ter; 2. Because it would be a proof of their sincerity; 3. Be- 
cause Christ had become poor for their sake; 4. Because it 
would redound to their own advantage, inasmuch as consist- 
ency required that having manifested the disposition, they 
should carry it out in action; and 5. Because what was 
required of them was perfectly reasonable. They were asked 
to give only according to their means; and what they were 
called upon to do for others, others under like circumstances 
would be required to do for them. Therefore is not a proper 
translation of ἀλλά (but). The word is often used to nar a 
transition to a new subject, and specially where what follows 
is an exhortation or command. Mark 16, 7. Acts 9, 6. 10, 20. 
As ye abound, i.e. have in abundance, or, have more than 
others, i. 6. excel. Jn every thing, (ἐν παντί.) limited of course 
by the context, and explained by what follows, ‘every gift 
and grace.’ The same testimony is borne in favour of the 
Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1, 5. 7. That the apostle sometimes 
κ πάρε so favourably, and sometimes so unfavourably of the 
church in Corinth, is to be accounted for by the fact that 
some of the people were very good, probably the majority, 
and some, especially among the teachers, very much the re- 
verse. Jn faith. To abound in faith is to have a strong, 
constant, operative faith, sustaining and controlling the whole 
inward and outward life. Jn utterance and knowledge, (λόγῳ 
καὶ γνώσει,) the same combination as in 1 Cor. 1,5. Here and 
there our translators have rendered Adyos utterance ; in both 
cases it may mean doctrine, as it does in so many passages, 
especially in such cases as “ word of truth,” “word of salva- 
tion,” “word of righteousness,” “word of Christ.” The 
meaning, therefore, is either that they were enriched with the 
gifts of utterance and knowledge, or doctrine and knowledge 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 8. 199 


Λόγος is the Christian truth as preached, γνῶσις that truth as 
apprehended or understood. Jn diligence, (arovdy,) earnest- 
ness, 2 general term for the energy or vigour of their spiritua) 
life, of which their love was one manifestation. In your love 
to us. The expression in Greek is peculiar, τῇ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν 
ἀγάπῃ, the love which is of you in us, 1. 6. your loye (to us) 
which we cherish in our hearts, That is, which we so highly 
estimate. Or, simply, amore a vobis profecto et in me collato. 
That ye may abound, The ἵνα περισσ. is most naturally ex- 
plained by supplying some word as in our version, See that 
ye abound. Compare Gal. 2,10. Jn this grace also, i. e. the 
grace of liberality. Others here as in the preceding verse 
make χάρις mean good work. But this is not so consistent 
with the context. Faith, knowledge, and love are not good 
works so much as divine gifts, and so also is liberality. 


8. I speak not by commandment, but by occasion 
of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity 
of your love. 


The apostle, agreeably to his usual manner, states first 
negatively, and then affirmatively, his object in what he had 
said. It was not of the nature of a command. It was not 
obedience, but spontaneous liberality he desired. The latter 
may be excited by the exhibition of appropriate motives, but 
it cannot be yielded to authority. Almsgiving in obedience 
to a command, or to satisfy conscience, is not an act of liber- 
ality. What is not spontaneous is not liberal. Paul, there- 
fore, would not coerce them by a command, His object was 
to put the genuineness of their love to the test. The nature 
of the test was suggested by the zeal of the Macedonians. So 
it was by the occasion of the forwardness of others he was 
led to put their love to that trial. The real test of the 
genuineness of any inward affection is not so much the charae- 
ter of the feeling as it reveals itself in our consciousness, as 
the course of action to which it leads. Many persons, if they 
judged themselves by their feelings, would regard themselves 
as truly compassionate ; but a judgment founded on their acts 
would lead to the opposite conclusion. So many suppose the 
really love God because they are conscious of feelings whic 
they dignify with that name; yet they do not obey him. It 
is thereby by the fruits of feeling we must judge of its genu- 
ineness both jn ourselves and others, t 

9 


200 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 9. 


9. For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became 
poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. 


This verse is a parenthesis, the sentence begun in v. 8 be- 
ing continued in vy. 10. Still the connection between this and 
the preceding verse is intimate and immediate. There are 
two things indicated and intended in this verse. That self 
sacrifice is the proper test of love. And second, that the 
example of Christ, and the obligation under which we lie to 
him, should lead us to do good to others. The apostle evi- 
dently combines these two thoughts. ‘I desire,’ he says, ‘to 
put your love to the test of selfsacrifice, for ye know that 
Christ’s love was thus manifested;’ and, ‘You may well be 
expected to sacrifice yourselves for others, since Christ gave 
himself for you” It is not only the example of Christ which 
is held up for our imitation; but gratitude to Christ for the 
infinite blessings we receive from him is presented as the mo- 
tive to liberality. or ye know. The fact referred to inelud- 
ing the highest mystery of the gospel, viz., the incarnation of 
the Son of God, or, the manifestation of God in the flesh, and 
the love therein manifested, is assumed to be known and 
acknowledged by all who called themselves Christians. Ye 
know, says Paul, as all Christians must know, the grace, i. 6. 
the unmerited, spontaneous love of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
A combination of the most endearing and exalted appella- 
tions. Our Lord, i. 6. the supreme and absolute Lord whom 
we acknowledge to be our rightful sovereign and possessor, 
and who is owrs, belongs to us, in so far as the care, protec- 
tion, and support of his almighty power are by his love 
pledged to us. Jesus Christ. He who is our Lord is our 
Saviour and the Christ, God’s anointed, invested by Him with 
supreme dominion. What belongs of right to the Logos in 
virtue of his divinity, is constantly represented as given to the 
Theanthropos. See Heb. 1,2. Zhat though, &c. This clause 
is explanatory of the former. ‘Ye know the grace of our 
Lord Jesus,’ that is, ‘Ye know that though he was rich, &c.? 
The grace consisted in, or was manifested by his becoming 
poor for our sakes. Being rich, πλούσιος ὧν, that is, either, 
as in our version, Zhough he was rich, in the possession of the 
glory which he had with the Father before the world was, 

ohn 17,5; or, Being rich in the actual and constant posses- 
sion of all divine prerogatives, In the latter case, the idea is 


II, CORINTHIANS 8, 10. 201 


that our blessed Lord while here on earth, although he had 
within himself the fulness of the Godhead and the right and 
power of possession over all things, yet was poor. He did 
not avail himself of his right and power to make himself rich, 
but voluntarily submitted to all the privations of poverty. 
The former interpretation is commonly and properly preferred. 
The reference in ἐπτώχευσε, he became poor, is not to what our 
Lord did while he was on earth, but to what he did when he 
came into the world. The passage is parallel to Phil. 2, 6. 
“Being in the form of God, and equal to God, he emptied 
(ἐκένωσε) himself.” That is, he so far laid aside the glory of 
his divine majesty, that he was to all appearance a man, and 
even a servant, so that men refused to recognise him as God, 
but despised, persecuted, and at last crucified him, as a man. 
He who was rich in the plenitude of all divine attributes and 
prerogatives thus became poor, δὲ ὑμᾶς, on your account, out 
of love to you. The end to be accomplished by this humilia- 
tion of the Son of God, was that, you through his poverty 
might be rich. Believers are made rich in the possession of 
that glory which Christ laid aside, or concealed. They are 
made partakers of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1,4. That is, of 
the divine holiness, exaltation and blessedness. This is divine 
not only because of its source as coming from God, but be- 
cause of its nature. So that our Lord says, “The glory which 
thou gavest me, I have given them,’ John 17, 22. Hence 
believers are said to be glorified with Christ and to reign with 
him, Rom. 8,17. The price of this exaltation and everlasting 
blessedness of his people was his own poverty. It is by his 
poverty that we are made rich. Unless he had submitted to 
all the humiliation of his incarnation and death, we should for- 
ever have remained poor, destitute of all holiness, happiness 
and glory. It should be observed that moral duties, such as 
almsgiving, are in the New Testament enforced not so much 
on moral grounds as on grounds uliarly Christian. No 
man can enter into the meaning of this verse or feel its power, 
without being thereby made willing to sacrifice himself for 
others. And the apostle teaches here, what St. John also 
teaches, 1 John 3,17, that it is vain for any man to profess or 
to imagine that he loves Christ, if he does not love the breth- 
ren and is not liberal in relieving their wants. 


10. And _ herein I give (my) advice: for this is ex- 


202 Il. CORINTHIANS 8, 8.. 


pedient for you, who have begun before, not only to 
do, but also to be forward a year ago. 


The connection is with v. 8. ‘I do not command, I, in 
this matter, viz., in making collections for the poor, give my 
mind ;’ γνώμην, in the sense of opinion. Comp. 1 Cor. 7, 6. 
For this is expedient for you. This admits of two interpreta- 
tions. ‘I advise you to make the collection, for this giving to 
the poor is profitable to you. It not only promotes your own 
moral growth, but it is demanded by consistency. Having 
begun this work it would be an injury to yourselves to leave 
it unfinished” This is the common, and on the whole the 
preferable explanation. It satisfies all the demands of the 
context ; and it makes ἐν τούτῳ and τοῦτο refer to the same 
thing. ‘In this matter (of giving) I express my opinion, for 
this (giving) is profitable to you. Meyer, Billroth and many 
others make τοῦτο refer to the immediately preceding words. 
‘I give my advice, for advising is better than commanding in 

our case, seeing ye were willing a year ago. This, however, 
is not demanded by the context, and lowers the sense. The 
former interpretation brings out a higher truth than the 
second. It is for our own good to do good. Who, οἵτινες, 
(being such as those who.) ‘It is expedient for you, because 
ye began before not only to do (τὸ ποιῆσαι). but to be forward 
(τὸ ϑέλειν) a year ago. As the will precedes the deed, many 
commentators assume an inversion in these words, and reverse 
their order, ‘Ye began not only to will, but to do.” This is 
arbitrary and unnecessary. Others, as do our translators, 
take the word ϑέλειν in an emphatic sense, to be zealous in 
doing. Luke 20,46. John 8,44. ‘Ye began not only to do, 
but to do with zeal. This, however, does not agree with the 
following verse, where ϑέλειν is used in its ordinary sense. 
Others again understand ποιῆσαι of the beginning of the work, 
and the ϑέλειν of the purpose to do more. But this requires 
much to be supplied which is not in the text. Besides it does 
not agree with the qualifying clause ‘a year ago.’ According to 
this explanation the ϑέλειν does not express what had occurred 
a year ago, but to the state of mind now assumed to exist and 
subsequent to the doing begun the year before. De Wette, 
Winer, and Meyer give a much more natural interpretation. 
The word προενήρξασϑε, as in v. 6, refers to the Macedonian 
churches. ‘ You anticipated the Macedonians not only in the 
work but in the purpose,’ That is, before they had begun to 


II. CORINTHIANS 8,11. 12. 203 


make a collection for the poor saints, you had begun; and 
before they thought of it, you had determined to do it. ‘ Hay- 
ing thus peen beforehand with them it would be to your dis- 
advantage to leave your work half done, seeing that the mere 
mention of your purpose, 9, 2, roused them to such self-deny- 
ing liberality” A year ago, (ἀπὸ πέρυσι.) This does not 
imply that a whole year had intervened, but is analogous to 
our popular expression last year. If Paul, according to the 
Jewish reckoning, began the year in October, he could prop- 
erly speak, when writing in November, of an event which 
happened in the spring, as having occurred last year. An in- 
terval of little more than six months, according to this view, 
from spring to fall, intervened between the date of the first 
and second epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. 


11. Now therefore perform the doing (of it): that 
as (there was) a readiness to will, so (there may be) a 
performance also out of that which ye have. 


Now therefore, i. e. as there has been the purpose and the 
commencement, let there be also the completion of the work. 
Literally, complete ye also the doing. That, (ὅπως, in order 
that,) as the readiness to will, so also the completion. Con- 
sistency required them to carry out their good intentions 
openly expressed, Out of that which ye have, ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν, ac- 
cording to (you) property. The preposition é is not here to 
be rendered out of, but it expresses the rule or standard, 
Compare John 3,34, The apostle was not desirous to urge 
them either beyond their inclination, or beyond their ability. 
What they gave, he wished them to give freely, and with due 
regard to their resources. 


12. For if there be first a willing mind, (it is) ac- 
cepted according to that a man hath, (and) not accord- 
ing to that he hath not. 


The connection is evidently with the last words of v. 11. 
They were to give according to their property, for the stand- 
ard of judgment with God is the disposition, not the amount 
given. The same doctrine is taught by our Lord, Mark 12, 
42. If there be first, literally, if there be present ; πρόκειται 
does not mean prius adest, but simply adest. A willing 


204 11. CORINTHIANS 8, 13. 


mind, 7 προϑυμία, the readiness, or, disposition. Jt is; that 
is, the προϑυμία (the disposition) ts accepted, εὐπρόσδεκτος, ac- 
ceptable. It is often used in reference to offerings made to 
God. Rom. 15,16. 1 Pet. 2,5. Some of the ancient MSS. 
introduce the indefinite pronoun tis, as the subject of the 
verbs ἔχῃ and ἔχει, so our translators insert man, ‘according 
to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not? 
The grammatical subject, however, of all the verbs in the 
verse is προϑυμία, which Paul, according to his custom, per- 
sonifies, and therefore says, It is acceptable according to that 
it may have, (fav ἔχῃ.) be it more or less; not according to 
that it hath not. This does not mean that the disposition is 
not acceptable when it exceeds the ability to give, or leads to 
extravagant gifts. This may be true, but it is not the idea 
here intended. The meaning is simply that the disposition is 
what God regards, and that disposition will be judged of ac- 
cording to the resources at its command. A small gift may 
manifest in one case much greater willingness to give, than a 
much larger gift in another. 


13. For ({ mean) not that other men be eased, and 
you burdened. 


The reason why he did not wish them to exceed their 
ability in giving, is here stated negatively. The positive 
statement follows in the next verse. The apostle did not 
wish to throw an unequal burden upon the Corinthians. He 
did not desire that others should be released from all obliga- 
tion to give, and they oppressed by it. Not to others ἄνεσις 
(relief), and to you ϑλῖψις (oppression), is his concise expres- 
sion. According to this view, by ἄλλοις, others, we are to 
understand other churches or Christians; and by ἄνεσις, relief 
from the obligation to give. But this is consistent neither 
with what precedes nor with what follows. The equality 
which he aims at, is not the equality of the churches in giving, 
but that which arises from the deficiency of one class being 
made up by the abundance of another. By others, therefore, 
we must understand the poor, and in this case, the poor saints 
at Jerusalem, and by ἄνεσις release from the pressure of 

overty, and by ϑλῖψις the burden of indigence. The mean- 
ing therefore is, that Paul did not desire that the Corinthians 
should go beyond their ability in giving, for he had no wish 
that others should be enriched, and they impoverished. It is 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 14. 205 


not obligatory on the rich to make themselves poor in order 
that the poor may be rich. That is not the rule. 


14. But by an equality, (that) now at this time 
your abundance (may be a supply) for their want, that 
their abundance also may be (a supply) for your want : 
that there may be equality. 


The word ἰσότης means here neither reciprocity nor equity, 
but equality, as the illustration in v. 15 shows. The ἐκ, as in 
v. 11, (ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν.) expresses the rule or standard in giving. 
That rule is equality; we must give so as to produce, or that 
there may be, equality. This is not agrarianism, nor commu- 
nity of goods. The New Testament teaches on this subject, 
1, That all giving is voluntary. A man’s property is his own. 
It is in his own power to retain or to give away; and if he 
gives, it is his prerogative to decide whether it shall be much 
or little. Acts 5,4. This is the doctrine taught in this whole 
connection. Giving must be voluntary. It is the fruit of 
love. It is of course ΟΡΕΚΨΟΕΥ as ἃ moral duty, and the in- 
disposition to give is proof of the absence of the love of God. 
1 John 3,17. Still it is one of those duties the performance 
of which others cannot enforce as aright belonging to them. 
It must remain at our own discretion. 2. That the end to be 
accomplished by giving is relieving the necessities of the poor. 
The equality, therefore, aimed at, or intended, is not an 
equality as to the amount of property, but equal relief from 
the burden of want. This is taught in the remainder of this 
verse. ‘At the present time,’ says the apostle, ‘let your 
abundance be to (γένηται εἰς, extend to, be imparted to, Gal. 
3, 14,) their want, in order that their abundance may be to 
your want, that there may be equality;’ that is, an equal 
relief from want or destitution. 3. A third scriptural princi- 
ple on this subject is, that while all men are brethren, and the 
poor as poor, whether Christians or not, are the proper objects 
of charity, yet there is a special obligation resting on the 
members of Christ to relieve the wants of their fellow-believ- 
ers. We are to do good to all men, says the apostle, special- 
ly to those who are of the household of faith. Gal. 6,10. All 
the directions in this and the following chapter have reference 
to the duty of Christians to their fellow-believers. There are 
two reasons for this. The one is the common relation of be- 


206 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 15. 16. 


lievers to Christ as members of his body, so that what is done 
to them is done to him; and their consequent intimate relation 
to each other as being one body in Christ Jesus. The other 
is, the assurance that the good done to them is pure good. 
There is no apprehension that the alms bestowed will encour- 
age idleness or vice. 3. A fourth rule is designed to prevent 
any abuse of the brotherhood of Christians. The poor have 
no right to depend on the benefactions of the rich because 
they are brethren. This same apostle says, “This we com- 
manded you, that if any man would not work, neither should 
he eat,” 2 Thess. 3,10. Thus do the Scriptures avoid, on the 
one hand, the injustice and destructive evils of agrarian com- 
munism, by recognising the right of property and making all 
almsgiving optional; and on the other, the heartless disregard 
of the poor by inculcating the universal brotherhood of be- 
lievers, and the consequent duty of each to contribute of his 
abundance to relieve the necessities of the poor. At the same 
time they inculcate on the poor the duty of self-support to the 
extent of their ability. They are commanded “ with quietness 
to work, and to eat their own bread.” Could these principles 
be carried out there would be among Christians neither idle- 
ness nor want. 


15. As it is written, He that (had gathered) much 
had nothing over; and he that (had gathered) little 
had no lack. 


The moral lesson taught in Exodus 16, 18, is that which 
the apostle had just inculcated. There it is recorded that the 
people, by the command of God, gathered of the manna an 
omer for each person. Those who gathered more retained 
only the allotted portion; and those who gathered less had 
their portion increased to the given standard, ‘There was as 
to the matter of necessary food an equality. If any one at- 
tempted to hoard his portion, it spoiled upon his hands. The 
lesson therefore taught in Exodus and by Paul is, that, among 
the people of God, the superabundance of one should be em- 
ployed in relieving the necessities of others; and that any at- 
tempt to countervail this law will result in shame and loss, 
Property is like manna, it will not bear hoarding. 


16. But thanks (be) to God, which put the same 
earnest care into the heart of ‘Titus for you. 


aa 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 17. 207 


From this verse to the end of the chapter the apostle 
commends to the confidence of the Corinthians Titus and the 
two brethren who were to accompany him on his return to 
Corinth. The object of Titus’s first visit was to ascertain the 
state of the church, and specially the effect of Paul’s former 
epistle. The object of this mission was to bring to an end 
the collection for the poor which the Corinthians had so long 
under consideration. Titus had as much zeal in this matter 
as Paul, and therefore the apostle thanks God which put into 
the heart of Titus ; τῷ διδόντι ἐν, ‘Thanks to God: giving in, 
i. 6. giving to be in, the heart of Titus” Zhe same earnest 
care for you ; τὴν αὐτὴν σπουδήν, the same zeal, i. 6. the same 
zeal which I have for you. Titus felt the same interest in the 
spiritual welfare of the Corinthians, and the same solicitude 
that they should act consistently, that Paul had so warmly 
expressed in the foregoing verses. Often, as the occasion of 
fers, it is still well to notice how uniformly the Scriptures take 
for granted two great fundamental truths which human phi- 
losophy finds it hard to comprehend or to admit. The one is 
that God can and does control the inward acts and feelings of 
men without interfering either with their liberty or responsi- 
bility. The zeal of Titus was the spontaneous effusion of his 
own heart and was an index and element of his character. 
Yet God put that zeal into his heart. This is not a figure of 
speech. It was a simple and serious truth, a ground of solemn 
thanksgiving to God. The other great truth is that the be- 
lievyer is dependent on God for the continuance and exercise 
of spiritual life. The Holy Spirit does not regenerate the soul 
by implanting in it a new principle of life, and then leave that 
principle to struggle in its own strength for existence and 
growth. On the contrary, the new birth is the beginning of 
a constant indwelling of God in the soul, so that both the 
continuance and exercise of this new life are due to his pres- 
ence. Yet so congenial and congruons is this divine influence 
that the life of God in us is in the highest sense our own life. 


17. For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but 
being more forward, of his own accord he went unto 
you. 


This is the proof of the zeal of Titus. Some commentators 
assume that μέν and δέ are here used instead of οὐ μόνον----ἀλλά, 
‘Not only did he listen to our exhortation, but fulfilled it with 


208 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 18. 19. 


greater zeal as he went forth willingly.” But Meyer gives a 
better explanation. ‘He accepted indeed our exhortation, 
i. e. he modestly submitted himself to my direction, but being 
too zealous (σπουδαιότερος) to need an exhortation, he went of 
his own accord.” He did not require to be urged to go, al- 
though in this, as in other matters, he was willing to do as I 
wished. He went unto you. Titus was no doubt the bearer 
of this epistle, and was with the apostle when it was written. 
He had not yet gone forth. In epistolary style the writer 
may use the tense suited to his own position, or to that of his 
readers. Paul here, and in the following verses, uses the past 
tense, because when his epistle came to hand the events re- 
ferred to would be past. 


18. And we have sent with him the brother, whose 
praise (is) in the gospel throughout all the churches. 


We have sent. The time is from the stand-point of the 
reader, as before. We send with him the brother. As the 
name is not given, and as no data are furnished by which to 
determine who the brother here mentioned was, it is useless 
to conjecture. It was some one subordinate to Titus sent 
with him as a companion, some one well known throughout 
the churches, and who had especially the confidence of the 
Macedonian Christians, v.19. But these conditions meet in 
so many of the persons mentioned in the Acts or Paul’s epis- 
tles that they lead to no certain conclusion. Whether, there- 
fore, it was Luke, Mark, Trophimus, or some one else, must be 
left undecided. The question is hardly worth the trouble 
which commentators have devoted to it. This brother’s 
praise is said to have been in the gospel. He was distin- 
guished by his efforts in that sphere; that is, by his zeal and 
labour in promoting the gospel. Through all the churches. 
If this be taken with the limitation of all the churches of 
Macedonia, it still is evidence that the brother referred to was 
specially entitled to the confidence of the Corinthians, 


19. And not (that) only, but who was also chosen 
of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which 
is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, 
and (declaration of) your ready mind. 


Il. CORINTHIANS 8, 19. 209 


This brother was entitled to confidence, and might safely 
be intrusted with the contributions of the Corinthians, not 
only on the ground of his general reputation, but also because 
he had been elected for the very purpose of taking charge, 
together with Paul, of the money collected for the saints. 
Chosen, χειροτονηϑείς, literally, chosen by the stretching out 
the hand, therefore popularly. The word, however, is con- 
stantly used for selection or appointment without reference to 
the mode. Thus Josephus speaks of the king as having been 
ὑπὸ τοῦ Jeod κεχειροτονημένος. Ant. vi. 4.2. See Wetstein. ou 
the churches, probably by the churches of Macedonia. Zo 
travel with us, συνέκδημος ἡμῶν, i. 6. elected our travelling com- 
panion. Acts 19,29. Wéith this grace. The word χάρις means 
either the disposition, or that which is its expression or mani- 
festation, i. 6, either kindness or a kindness. Any free gift is 
therefore a grace. Here the grace intended is the alms col- 
lected for the poor. Which is ministered by us, i. e. of which 
we are the administrators, Paul had undertaken to adminis- 
ter the benefactions of the Gentile Christians among the 
brethren at Jerusalem, and the brother referred to had been 
chosen to travel with him and assist him in this service or 
ministry. 1700 the glory of the same Lord, i. 6. of our common 
Lord. The natural construction of this clause is with the im- 
mediately preceding words. ‘This gift is administered by us 
to the glory of the Lord” The only objection to this is that 
it requires the preposition πρός to be taken as expressing dif 
ferent relations in the same sentence. ‘ Administered πρὸς 
ddgav .... καὶ προϑυμίαν ὑμῶν (or, ἡμῶν), i. 6. to promote the 
glory of the Lord and to prove your readiness.” Meyer and 
others therefore refer the clause to xeporovn dels; ‘ chosen that 
by his co-operation Christ may be honoured and my (ἡμῶν) 
readiness to labour in the gospel, unincumbered by such cares, 
may have free scope.’ But this is unnatural, and supposes too 
much to be supplied to make out the sense. If the common 
text, which reads ὑμῶν, be retained, the sense is plain as ex- 
pressed in our version. ‘The ministration of this gift is for 
the manifestation of the glory of Christ and of your readiness 
or alacrity (in giving).’? The oldest manuscripts as well as 
the ancient versions, however, read ἡμῶν, which almost all the 
modern editors adopt. The sense then is, that the gift served 
to promote the glory of Christ and to prove the apostle’s will- 
ingness to serve the poor. 


210 II. CORINTHIANS 8, 20-22. 


20. Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in 
this abundance which is administered by us. 


The participle στελλόμενοι depends on the verb συνεπέμψαμεν. 
of the verse 18. ‘Wesent the brother with Titus, avoiding 
this ;’ that is,in order to avoid. It was not, however, merely 
the appointment of a brother to accompany Titus, but also 
the designation of that brother to take part in the distribution 
of the alms of the churches that Paul had determined upon in 
order to prevent misrepresentation. ‘The reference is there- 
fore to the whole preceding sentence. The word στέλλειν, 
literally, to place, means also to set in order, to prepare, a 
sense which some adopt here. ‘Preparing for, taking care 
with regard to, this.” The word also means to withdraw, to 
contract, and hence to avoid, which best suits this place as 
well as 2 Thess, 3, 6, where the word also occurs. Lest any 
one should blame us. He was determined not to give any 
one the opportunity to call his integrity into question, Jn 
this abundance which is administered by us ; i. 6. in the dis- 

osition of the large sums of money committed to his charge. 
he word ἁδρότης means ripeness, fulness, and then abundance ; 
the nature of which is of course determined by the context. 


21. Providing for honest things, not only in the 
sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. 


This gives the reason for the precaution just mentioned. 
It was not enough for the apostle to do right, he recognised 
the importance of appearing right. It is a foolish pride which 
leads to a disregard of public opinion. We are bound to act 
in such a way that not only God, who sees the heart and 
knows all things, may approve our conduct, but also so that 
men may be constrained to recognise our integrity. It isa 
general principle regulating his whole life which the apostle 
here announces. Προνοούμενος, providing for in one’s own be- 
half. The apostle says, He took care beforehand that men as 
well as God should see that he was honest. Compare Rom, 
12, 17, and Prov. 3, 4, in the LXX. 


22. And we have sent with them our brother, 
whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many 


II. CORINTHIANS 8, 23. 211 


things, but now much more diligent, upon the great 
confidence which (I have) in you. 


Who this second brother was whom Paul sent to accom- 
pany Titus and his fellow-traveller, there is no means of deter- 
mining. The apostle had proved him to be σπουδαῖον, earnest 
or diligent, ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις, ἴῃ many things many times. 
But now, i. e. on this occasion, much more diligent or earnest. 
His zeal and alacrity was greatly excited by the confidence 
which he has in regard to you. Ue was so assured of success 
that he entered on his mission with the greatest earnestness. 
This interpretation, which most commentators adopt, and 
which in our English Bibles is suggested in the margin, is 
more natural than that preferred by Calvin, Beza and others. 
They connect the word πεποιϑήσει with συνεπέμψαμεν, ‘We 
sent the brother with them; ... on account of the confidence 
we have in you.’ This, however, was not the reason for the 
mission ; nor does it suit the context to say, ‘we sent him with 
confidence,’ The position of the words is in favour of the 
explanation first mentioned. 


23. Whether (any do inquire) of Titus, (he is) my 
partner and fellow-helper concerning you: or our breth- 
ren (be inquired of, they are) the messengers of the 
churches, (and) the glory of Christ. 


This is a recapitulation, or summary commendation. The 
language in the original is very concise. Whether concerning 
Titus, i. e. whether I speak of Titus; or, Whether any do in- 
quire concerning Titus; or, without supplying any thing, ‘ As 
to Titus’ He is my partner, κοινωνός, my associate, one who 
has a part with me in a common ministry. And, specially, 
as concerns you my fellow-laborer (συνεργός). Whether our 
brethren, (they are) the messengers (ἀπόστολοι) of the churches, 
The word apostle is here obviously used in its literal, and not 
in its official sense. These men were surely not apostles in 
the sense in which Paul was. In like manner, in Phil. 2, 25, 
Epaphroditus is called the apostle of the Philippians, because 
he was their messenger sent to minister to Paul at Rome. 
Both the brethren, therefore, above mentioned, and not only 
the one of whom it is said specially that he was chosen by the 
churches, were delegated by the people. They are further 
said to be the glory of Christ. As Christ alone, says Calvin, 


212 II. CORINTHIANS 9. 


is the glory of believers, so he is glorified by them. They 
reflect his glory. They by their holiness lead men to see the 
excellence of Christ whose image they bear. 


24. Wherefore shew ye to them, and before the 


churches, the proof of your love, and of our boasting 
on your behalf. 


In conclusion the apostle exhorts the Corinthians to prove 
to these messengers so worthy of their confidence their love, 
and the truth of the favourable testimony which he had borne 
to their liberality. Show the proof (ri ἔνδειξιν. . ἐνδείξασϑε) 
of your love. This may mean, ‘your love to me;’ or, ‘ your 
Christian love ;’ or, as is most natural, ‘ your love to them, 
Give them evidence of your love, i, e. receive them with affec- 
tionate confidence; and let them see that my boasting of you 
was true. Before the churches ; that is, so that the churches, 
by whom these brethren were sent, may see the proof of your 
love. Instead of the received text, which has the imperative 
évdeiEao-Je, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer and others, after 
the older MSS., read ἐνδεικνύμενοι. ‘Exhibiting the evidence 
of your love, &c., (do it) in the presence of the churches? 
This whole chapter proves how intimately the early Christians 
were bound together, not only from the intercourse here 
shown to exist between the several churches, but from the 
influence which they exerted over each other, from their 
brotherly love and sympathy, and from the responsibility 
which each is assumed to owe to the judgment of the others. 


CHAPTER IX. 


An exhortation to the Corinthians not to falsify his boasting of their liberal- 


ity, vs. 1-5. An exhortation to give not only liberally but cheerfully, 
vs. 6-15. 


Continuation of the discourse in the preceding chapter on 
making collections for the saints. 


A.rnoven aware of their readiness, the apostle sent the 
brethren to bring the collection for the poor to an end, lest 
when the Macedonians who were to accompany him to Cor 


II. CORINTHIANS 9, 1. 213 


inth arrived, they should find them unprepared, not so much 
to their disgrace, as to his mortification, vs. 1-4. He sent the 
brethren, therefore, that every thing they intended to do 
might be done in time, and be done cheerfully, v. 5. It was 
not only liberality, but cheerfulness in giving that the Lord 
ere vs. 6. 7. God who commanded them to give could 
and would supply their wants, and increase their graces, 
They would be the richer and the better for what they gave, 
vs. 8-10. What he had at heart was not so much that the 
2 angi sufferings of the poor should be relieved, as that God 
might be glorified by the gratitude and mutual love of believ- 
ers, and by the exhibition of their Christian graces, vs. 10-14. 
are are our gifts to the poor compared to the gift of Christ 
to us? v. 15, 


1. For as touching the ministering to the saints, it 
is superfluous for me to write to you. 


This is not a new paragraph, much less, as some have con- 
jectured, a separate writing. It is intimately connected with 
the preceding. In the last verse of chapter 8, he exhorted them 
to receive the brethren with confidence, for indeed it is super- 
fluous to write about the collection. He exhorted them to 
show their love to the brethren who were to visit them, for 
they needed no exhortation to liberality. This is another of 
those exhibitions of urbanity and rhetorical skill with which 
the epistles of Paul abounds. The δέ answering to the μέν of 
this verse is by some said to be found in verse 3. ‘It is not 
necessary indeed to write, but I send, &e.’ Or, if the connec- 
tion between ys. 2 and 3 forbid this, the μέν may be taken as 
standing alone; as in 1 Cor, 5,3. 11,18. So De Wette. Con- 
cerning the ministering (περὶ τῆς διακονίας.) The word is often 
used not only for the ministry of the word, but also for the 
service rendered in the collection and distribution of alms, 
Acts 6,1. 12,25. Rom.15,31. 70 the saints. All believers 
are called ἅγιοι in the sense of sacred, i. 6. separated from the 
world and consecrated to God, and as inwardly renewed and 

urified by the Holy Spirit. 8, 4. Acts 9,13. Rom. 1,7. 8, 27. 
he saints referred to were of course the poor believers in 
Jerusalem for whose benefit Paul instituted this collection in 
the several churches which he had founded. 1 Cor. 16, 1-3, 
It is superfluous for me (περισσόν μοι ἐστί) to write (τὸ γράφειν, 
the infinitive has the article because it 1s the subject of the 


214 II. CORINTHIANS 9, 2. 


sentence) unto you. Paul had written and was about to write 
still further on the subject ; so that this is to be understood as 
only a polite intimation that his writing, so far as they were 
concerned, was not necessary. They did not need urging. 


2. For I know the forwardness of your mind, for 
which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia 


was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked 


very many. 


The reason why it was superfluous to write to them was 
that they were disposed to act spontaneously. The apostle 
says he knew their forwardness of mind, (xpoSvpiav,) their 
readiness or disposition to give. Jor which I boast (ἣν καυ- 
χῶμαι, see 11, 30 for the same construction) of you (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, 
for you, to your advantage). Their readiness to give was 8 
matter of which Paul at that time boasted to the Macedonians 
among whom he then was. This does not imply that the 
apostle regarded their liberal disposition an honour to himself, 
as though it owed its existence to his agency. We are said 
to boast of the good qualities of a friend when we proclaim 
them to his honour aud not our own. TZhat Achaia was 
ready a year ago. This was Paul’s boast, All the Christians 
in Achaia belonged to the church in Corinth, although they 
did not all reside in that city. See 1,1. Was ready, i. e. to 
take part in a collection for the saints. He does not mean 
that the collection had already been completed, so that nothing 
remained to be done. The context does not justify the dis- 
paraging supposition that Paul, to excite the emulation of the 

facedonian Christians, had overstated the fact as to the Corin- 
thians, representing them as having already a year ago made 
their collection. Zhe readiness to which he here refers is the 
readiness of purpose. They were fully prepared to take part 
in the work. Others say the apostle had told the Macedoni- 
ans that the Corinthians had made their collection and were 
ready to hand over the money. Those who have sufficient 
respect for themselves not to speak disrespectfully of the 
apostle, say that he truly believed this to be the fact, and was 
now solicitous that the Corinthians should not falsify his asser- 
tion by being unprepared. Others, however, as Rickert, (and 
in a measure De Wette,) represent the apostle as dishonestly 
telling to the Macedonians that the Corinthians had made 


‘ 
| 
: 
‘ 


ΞΕ. 


- 


= 
: 
2 


Sees oe 6 
i, - 


II. CORINTHIANS 9, 8. 215 


their collection, and now to save his credit, he begged the 
latter to finish the work before he and his Macedonian friends 
arrived. The whole body of Paul’s epistles is a refutation of 
this interpretation. No man who is capable of receiving the 
true impress of his exalted character can suppose him guilt 
of false statement or duplicity. What he told the Macedoni- 
ans was simply that the Corinthians were prepared. What 
preparation is meant is plain from the context. It consisted 
in their προϑυμία, their alacrity of mind to take part in the 
work. A year ago, 8,10. And your zeal, i. e. your προϑυμία, 
alacrity, in this business. The words are 6 ἐξ ὑμῶν ζῆλος, where 
the ἐκ may be considered redundant, as our translators have 
assumed it to be; or, it may be omitted from the text, as by 
Lachmann; or, the meaning is, the zeal which emanated from 
you. This last is to be preferred. ath provoked. The 
word ἐρεϑίζειν means to excite, whether the feeling called into 
exercise be good or bad. In Col, 3, 21, fathers are cautioned 
not to provoke their ehildren. Here the pir | is that the 
zeal of the Corinthians had excited the zeal of others. Very 
many, τοῦς πλείονας, the Palorny the greater number, Acts 
19,32. It was not every individual of the Macedonian Chris- 
tians, but the majority of them, whom the zeal of the Corin- 
thians had excited. 


3. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting 
of you should be in vain in this belialf; that, as I said, 
ye may be ready. 


If the connection is with y. 1, the δέ here answers to the 
μέν there. ‘There is no need to write, but I send, &c? The 
reference, however, may be tov. 2. ‘I boasted of your prep- 
aration, but lest my boasting be falsified, I send, &c. The 
brethren, viz,, Titus and his two companions, who were about 
to proceed to Corinth to attend to this matter. Lest our 
boasting of you be in vain, κενωϑῇ, be proved unfounded, 
1 Cor. 9, 15, i. 6. shown to be an empty boast. Ln this behalf. 
Paul did not fear that the good account which he had given 
of the Corinthians in other matters should be contradicted by 
the facts, but only in this one affair of the collection for the 
poor. Zhat, as I said, ye may be ready. 'This clause is par- 
allel with the preceding. ‘I sent the brethren that my boast- 
ing be not found vain, 1. e, I sent them that ye may be ready. 

10 : 


216 II. CORINTHIANS 9, 4. 


It appears from 8,10 that the Corinthians had avowed the 
pene to make a collection for the poor at Jerusalem, and 

ad actually begun the work a year ago. Paul had mentioned 
this fact to the Macedonians, telling them that the Corinthi- 
ans were ready to do their part in this business. He now 
sends Titus and the brethren that the work may at once be 
completed, and his boasting of them prove to be true. It is 
plain that he could not have told the Macedonians that the 
collection at Corinth had already been made, because he not 
only knew that such was not the fact, but he in this very pas- 
sage refers to the work as yet to be accomplished. He could 
hardly say, ‘I told the Macedonians you had made your col- 
lection a year ago and had the money all ready to hand over,’ 
at the very moment he was urging them to collect it. The 
simple fact is that he had said the Corinthians were ready to 
do their part in this business, and he begged them to do at 
once what they intended to do, lest his boasting of their 
readiness (zpoJvpiu) should prove to have been unfounded, 
There is nothing in this inconsistent with perfect truthfulness 
and open-hearted fairness, 


4. Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, 
and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) 
should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. 


Paul was attended from city to city by travelling com- 
anions, who conducted him on his way and ministered to 
im. 1 Cor. 16,6. Rom. 15,24. Acts 17, 14.15. &e. As he 

was now in Macedonia it was in accordance with the usual 
custom that Macedonians should attend him to Corinth. 
Tf they come with me, tav AIwow, shall have come, i. 6. ‘ Lest 
when they come and find you unprepared, i, e. unprepared to 
do what a year ago you professed your readiness to do, we 
(that we say not, you) should be ashamed. 'The failure would 
indeed be a cause of shame to the Corinthians, but he delicate. 
ly substitutes himself. He appeals to their better feelings 
when he calls upon them to save him from mortification, in- 
stead of exhorting them to save themselves from disgrace. 
In this same confident boasting. The words τῆς καυχήσεως are 
omitted by almost all the recent editors from Griesbach down. 
They are not found in the MSS. B, C, D, F, G, or the ancient 
versions, They probably were added by a transcriber from 


ee ee! ρυύου a 


"ἝἝ ι. 


II. CORINTHIANS 9, 5. 217 


11,17. These words being omitted, the text stands, ἐν τῇ ὑποσ- 
τάσει ταύτῃ, in this confidence, i. e. ashamed in relation to this 
confidence. Comp. Heb. 3,14. 11,1. Others take the word 
in the sense of negotium, “in this thing,” which is not only 
unnecessary, but contrary to usage. 


5. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the 
brethren, that they would go before unto you, and 
make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had no- 
tice before, that the same might be ready, as (a matter 
οἵ) bounty, and not as (of) covetousness, 


Therefore, i. e. in order to avoid the mortification of his 
boasting being proved vain. J thought it necessary to exhort 
the brethren, (Titus and his companions,) that they would go 
before ; oe aka as in 8,6, and often elsewhere, ἵνα 
is used after verbs signifying to ask, exhort, &c,, in the sense 
of ὅτι) Would go before, i. e. before Paul and his Macedoni- 
an companions, And make up beforehand, προκαταρτίσωσι, a 
word not found in the Greek writers, and occurring im the 
New Testament only in this passage. The simple verb means, 
to put fully in order, to complete. This the brethren were to 
do in reference to the collection, before Paul’s arrival. Your 
bounty, τὴν εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν, your blessing. The word is used 
in the sense both of benediction and benefaction. The latter 
is clearly its meaning here, as perhaps also in Rom, 15, 29; 
see also Eph. 1, 3, and in the LX X. Gen. 33,11. Judges 1, 15, 
1 Sam. 25, 27, &c. So in English, a blessing is either a prayer 
for good, or the good itself. Whereof ye had notice before. 
Here the reading is doubtful. The common text has zpoxa- 
τηγγελμένην, announced beforehand. Not, however, as our 
translation has it, announced to you, but to others. The 
benefaction before spoken of, i. e. of which so much has been 
said, Almost all the critical editions read προεπηγγελμένην, 
promised beforehand, ‘your promised benefaction,’ And this 
gives a better sense, as the apostle was urging them to do 
what they had promised. That the same might be ready as a 
matter of bownty ; οὕτως ὡς εὐλογίαν, so as a blessing, i. e. as 
something worthy of the name. This may mean, ‘ worthy of 
the name because the fruit of love;’ or, because given freely ; 
or, because rich, abundant. This last is to be preferred be- 
cause of the antithesis between εὐλογία and πλεονεξία, because 


LN ἫΝ 


ι 


ε 


218 II. CORINTHIANS 9, 6. 


of the explanation in v. 6, and because cheerfulness in giving 
is afterwards enforced. And not as of covetousness ; literally, 
not as covetousness, i, 6. not such a gift as betrays the avarice 
of the giver. | 3 


6. But this (1 say), He which soweth sparingly, 
shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bounti- 
fully, shall reap also bountifully. | 


The words τοῦτο δέ, but this, are commonly and most natu- 
rally explained by supplying some such words as J say, or, 
consider, Others take them as the accusative absolute; ‘as 
to this, however.’ Meyer unnaturally makes τοῦτο the object 
of σπείρων, ‘He who sows this sparingly, &c.’? That is, in oth- 
er cases it may be different, but in this spiritual sowing, in 
this seed of good deeds, the rule always holds good. Our 
version gives a simple and suitable sense. The only question 
of doubt in the verse is the meaning of the words ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις, 
which our translators have rendered adverbially, bowntifully. 
‘He that sows bountifully, shall reap also bountifully” This 
undoubtedly is the meaning as determined by the antithesis, 
‘He that sows φειδομένως sparingly, and he that sows ἐπ᾽ εὐλο- 
γίαις bountifully? But the question is how to get that sense 
out of the words, which literally mean with blessings. ‘He 
that sows with blessings, shall reap with blessings.’ 'The force 
of the preposition ἐπί with the dative in this place may be ex- 
plained after the analogy of such passages as Rom, 4, 18. 
1 Cor. 9,10; ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι, with hope, as expressing the condition 
under which any thing is done; or after the analogy of such 
places as Rom, 5, 14, ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι, after the similitude, as 
expressing the rule according to which it is done. In either 
case the preposition and noun may express an adverbial quali- 
fication, In this case therefore, ἐπ᾿ εὑλογίαις, ad normam bene- 
Jiciorum, as Wahl translates it, may, as the context requires, 
mean kindly, freely, or bountifully. Here, as just stated, the 
antithesis with φειδομένως requires the last, viz., bountifally. 
The sentiment here expressed is the same as in Proy. 11, 24, 
“There is that scattereth and yet increaseth; and there is that 
withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.” 
It is comprehended also in the wider truth taught in Gal. 6, 7. 
Our Lord teaches the same doctrine, Luke 6, 38, “‘ Give and it 
shall be given unto you, ὥς.» Matt. 10,41, and often else- 


has 


II. CORINTHIANS 9, 7. 219 


where. It is edifying to notice the difference between the 
divine wisdom and the wisdom of men. As the proper motive 
to acts of benevolence is a desire for the happiness of others 
and a regard to the will of God, human wisdom says it is 
wrong to appeal to any selfish motive. The wisdom of God, 
while teaching the entire abnegation of self, and requiring a 
man even to hate his own life when in conflict with the glory 
of God, tells all who thus deny themselves that they thereby 
most effectually promote their own interests. He that loses 
his life shall save it. He that does not seek his own, shall best 
‘ secure his own. He that humbleth himself shall be exalted. 
_ There ean, however, be no hypocrisy in this matter. It is not 
‘ the man who pretends to deny himself, to humble himself, or 
' ἴο seek the good of others rather than his own, while he acts 
from a regard to self, who is to be thus rewarded. It is only 
those who sincerely postpone themselves to others, who shall 
be preferred before them. We may thence learn that it is 
right to present to men the divinely ordained consequences of 
their actions as motives to control their conduct. It is right 
to tell men that obedience to God, devotion to his glory and 
the good of others, will effectually promote their own welfare. 


7. Every man according as he purposeth in his 
heart, (so let him give ;) not grudgingly, or of necessi- 
ty: for God loveth a cheerful giver. 


a re 


Though he wished them to give bountifully, he desired 
them to do it freely. Let each one give as he purposes in his 
heart, i. e. as he cordially, or with the consent of the heart, 
determines. This stands opposed to what follows, and, there- 
fore, is explained by it. Not grudgingly, ἐκ λύπης, not out of 
sorrow ; i. e. let not the gift proceed out of a reluctant state 

h of mind, grieving after wikis is given as so much lost. Or of 
4 necessity, i. 6. constrained by circumstances to give, when you 
Υ prefer not to do it. Many gifts are thus given sorrowfully, 
where the giver is induced to give by a regard to public 
opinion, or by stress of conscience. This reluctance spoils the 

ift. It loses all its fragrance when the incense of a free and 
joyful spirit is wanting. or God loveth a cheerful giver ; 
ἱλαρὸν δότην, a joyful giver, one to whom giving is a delight, 
who does it with hilarity. The passage is quoted from Prov. 
22, 9, where the Hebrew means, “A good eye shall be 


ee 


220 II. CORINTHIANS 9, 8. 


blessed.” The LXX. renders the words qguoad sensum, ἄνδρα 
ἱχαρὸν καὶ δότην εὐλογεῖ ὁ Feds; a version which Paul adopts for 
substance. God blesses, loves, delights in, the joyous giver. 
Let not, therefore, those who give reluctantly, or from stress 
of circumstances, or to secure merit, imagine that mere giving 
is acceptable to God. Unless we feel it is an honour anda 
joy to give, God does not accept the offering. 


8. And God (is) able to make all grace abound 
toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in 
all (things), may abound to every good work. 


From this verse to the 11th, the apostle assures them that 
the liberal and cheerful giver will always have something to 
give. Godis able. The sacred writers often appeal to the 
power of God as a ground of confidence to his people. Rom. 
16, 25. Eph. 3, 20. Jude 24. This is done especially when 
we are called upon to believe something which is contrary to 
the natural course of things. Giving is, to the natural eye, 
the way to lessen our store, not to increase it. The Bible 
says it is the way to increase it. To believe this it is only 
necessary to believe in the power, providence, and promise 
of God. God is able to make the paradox, “he that scatter- 
eth, increaseth,” prove true. God is able to make all grace 
abound ; χάριν, favour, gift, whether temporal or spiritual, or 
both, depends on the context. Here the reference is clearly 
to earthly good; that kind of good or favour is intended 
which enables those who receive it to give abundantly. The 
idea, therefore, obviously is, ‘God is able to increase your 
wealth” That ye, having all sufficiency in all things. The 
expression here is striking, ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν, in all things, 
always, all, God is able so to enrich you that you shall have 
in every respect, at all times, all kinds of sufficiency. The 
word is αὐτάρκειαν, which everywhere else means contentment. 
This sense Grotius, Meyer and others retain here. ‘That hay- 
ing full contentment,’ 1. 6. being fully satisfied and not craving 
more, you may, &c. This, however, is not so well suited to 
the context, and especially to the qualifying words, ἐν παντί, 
It is ‘a competency in every thing’ of which the apostle 
speaks. That ye may abound, περισσεύητε, may have abund- 
ance. Phil. 4,18. The word is used transitively in the first 
clause of the verse and intransitively in the last. ‘ God is able 


II. CORINTHIANS 9, 9. 221 


to cause your riches to abound, that ye may have abundance 
to every good work ;? εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαϑόν, in reference to, so 
as to be able to perform every good work. The logical con- 
nection is not with the intermediate participial clause, ‘ that 
having sufficiency, ye may have abundance,’ but with the first 
clause, ‘God is able to cause your resources to abound, that 
ye may have abundance.’ The participial clause expresses 
simply what, notwithstanding their liberality, would be the 
result. Having (i. e. still having) a competency for yourselves, 
ye will have abundance for every good work. There is an- 
other interpretation of this passage which the English version 
naturally suggests. ‘That ye may abound in every good 
work” But this the Greek will not admit; because it is εἰς 
πᾶν, κιτιλ., and not ἐν παντί, x.r.A. See 1 Cor. 15,58. Besides, 
the other interpretation is better suited to the context. 


9. As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad ; he 
hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth 
forever. 


The connection is with the last clause of the preceding 
verse. Paul had said that he who gives shall have abundance 
to give. This is precisely what is said in Psalm 112. Of the 
man who fears God it is there said, “‘ Wealth and riches shall 
be in his house.” ‘He showeth favour, and lendeth.” “ He 
hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness 
endureth forever”? The main idea the apostle designs to pre- 
sent as having the sanction of the word of God is, that he who 
is liberal, who disperses, scatters abroad his gifts with free- 
handed generosity, as a man scatters seed, shall always have 
abundance. And this the Psalmist expressly asserts. It may 
be said that this is not in accordance with experience. We 
do not always see liberality attended by riches. This is a 
difficulty not peculiar to this case. The Bible is full of decla- 
rations concerning the blessedness of the righteous, and of the 
providential favours which attend their lot. This Psalm says, 
* Wealth and riches,” or, as the LX X. and Vulgate have it, 
“Glory and riches shall be in their house;” and our Lord 
says, that those who forsake all for him shall in this life re- 
ceive an hundred-fold, houses, lands, &c. Mark 10,30. These 
passages were not designed to be taken literally or applied 
universally. They teach three things. ist. The tendency of 
things. It is the tendency of righteousness to produce bless- 


222 II. CORINTHIANS 9, 10. 


edness, as it is the tendency of evil to produce misery. 96, 
The general course of divine providence. God in his prov- 
dence does as a general rule prosper the diligent and bless 
the righteous. Honesty is the best policy, is a maxim even 
of worldly wisdom. 3d. Even in this life righteousness pro- 
duces a hundred-fold more good than unrighteousness does, 
A righteous man is a hundred-fold more happy than a wicked 
man, other things being equal. A good man is a hundred-fold 
more happy in sickness, in poverty, in bereavement, than a 
wicked man in the same circumstances. It is, therefore, ac- 
cording to Scripture, a general law, that he that scattereth, 
increaseth ; he that gives shall have wherewith to give, 

His righteousness (i. e. the righteousness of the man who 
gives to the poor) endureth forever. The word δικαιοσύνη, 
righteousness, in Scripture, is often used in a comprehensive 
sense, including all moral excellence; and ofven in a restricted 
sense for rectitude or justice. When used in the comprehen- 
sive sense, it depends on the context what particular form of 
goodness is intended. ‘To return a poor man’s pledge is an 
act of δικαιοσύνη, Deut. 24, 13; so is giving alms, Matt. 6, 1 
(where the true reading is δικαιοσύνην, and not ἐλεημοσύνην). 
In like manner the “ glory of God” may mean the sum of his 
divine perfections, or his wisdom, power, or mercy, as special 
forms of his glory, as the context requires. In this passage it 
is plain that righteousness means general excellence or virtue, 
as manifested in beneficence. And when it is said that his 
beneficence shall continue forever, the implication is that he 
shall always have wherewith to be beneficent. And this is 
here the main idea. He shall always be prosperous; or, as it 
is expressed at the close of ν. 8, he shall have abundance for 
every good work, orever is equivalent to always, as εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα is often used for indefinite duration. Whether the 
duration be absolutely without limit, or whether the limit be 
unknown or undetermined, depends in each case on the nature 
of the thing spoken of, and on the analogy of Scripture. 


10. Now, he that ministereth seed to the sower, 
both minister bread for (your) food, and multiply your 
seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteous- 
ness. | 


Now ; δέ is continuative. God is able to give you abund- 


—* ta oS eae 


ἊΝ ὶ 
Pi 
ie 
ἧς 
᾿ 


II. CORINTHIANS 9, 10. 228 


ance, and he will do it. This verse is a declaration, and not a 
wish. Our translation, which makes it a prayer, is founded 
on the Elzevir, or common text, which reads χορηγήσαι, πληϑύ- 
vat, αὐξήσαι in the optative, instead of the futures χορηγήσει, 
πληϑυνεῖ, αὐξήσει, which are supported by a great preponder- 
ance of authorities, and are adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, and by the great majority of editors, ‘The sense 
expressed by the future forms is also better suited to the con- 
text. Paul’s desire was to produce the conviction in the 
minds of the Corinthians, which he himself so strongly felt, 
that no man is the poorer for being liberal. The ground of 
this conviction was twofold; the explicit promise of God, and 
his character and general mode of dealing with men. Ze that 
ministereth seed to the sower ; ὃ ἐπιχορηγῶν, he whose preroga- 
tive and wont it is to supply seed to the sower. Such being 
the character and, so to speak, the office of God, Paul was 
sure he would supply the necessities of his giving people. 
The words καὶ ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν our translators, after Calvin and 
others, connect with the following clause, and render καί both, 
**Shall both minister bread for food, and multiply, ὥο. The 
obviously natural construction is with the preceding clause, 
‘He that ministereth seed to the sower, and bread for eating.’ 
(The word is βρῶσις, eating, and not βρῶμα, food.) This connec- 
tion is also in accordance with the passage in Is, 55, 10, which 
was evidently in the apostle’s mind, and where the words are, 
**Seed to the sower, and bread to the eater.” This bountiful 
God wiil give and increase your seed. Your seed means your 
resources, your wealth, that which you can scatter abroad in 
acts of beneficence, as a sower scatters seed. He who fur- 
nishes the husbandman seed for his harvest, will abundantly 
supply you with seed for your harvest. And increase the 
JSruits of your righteousness, This is parallel with the pre- 
ceding clause, and means the same thing. ‘The fruits of your 
righteousness,’ are not the rewards of your righteousness, 
either here or hereafter. But ‘ your works of righteousness,’ 
i.e. of beneficence ; the word δικαιοσύνη having the same sense 
here as in the preceding clause. As in yv. 9, the words “his 
righteousness remaineth forever” mean that the righteous 
shall always have the means of being beneficent; so here to 
increase “the fruits of your righteousness,” means, ‘ will in- 
crease your means of doing good.’ This sense the context 
demands, and the words, in their scriptural sense, readily ad- 
mit, The other interpretation, however, according to which 
ee! 


994 II. CORINTHIANS 9, 11. 12. 


“the fruits of your righteousness” mean the reward of your. 


righteousness, amounts substantially to the same thing; for 
the reward of beneficence is, according to the context, the in- 
crease of the means wherewith to be beneficent. 


11. Being enriched in every thing to all bountiful- : 


ness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God. - 


In our version vs. 9 and 10 are regarded as a parenthesis, 


and this verse is connected with v. 8. “That ye may have 
abundance for every good work—being enriched, &c.” But 
this is unnecessary and forbidden by the regular connection 
of vs. 9 and 10 with v. 8. Others supply the substantive verb 
“ve shall be enriched.” Almost all the modern commenta- 
tors assume the irregular construction of the participle of 
which so many examples occur both in the New Testament 
and in the classics. See Eph. 4, 2. 3,17. Col. 2,2. 3, 16. 
Acts 15, 22, &e. The connection is therefore with what im- 
mediately precedes. ‘God will increase the fruits of your 
righteousness, (i. e. your resources,) being enriched, i, e. so 
that you shall be enriched, &c.’ The reference is not to in- 
ward or spiritual riches, but, as the whole context demands, 
to worldly riches. ‘If you are liberal, God will give you 
abundance, so that you shall be rich to all bountifulness, εἰς 
πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα. ‘The preposition (εἰς) expresses the design or 
end for which they shall be enriched. Bountifulness or liber- 
ality ; the word is ἁπλότης, which means sincerity, rightmind- 
edness. Another example of a general term used in a specific 
sense. See 8,2. Rom. 15,12. Which causes through us, i. e. 
by our ministry. Paul had been instrumental in exciting the 
liberality of the Corinthians and in effecting the contribution 
for the poor in Jerusalem, and therefore he could say that the 
thanksgiving to God which was thus called forth was through 
him. 'The good effect of the liberality of Christians was not 
limited to the relief of the temporal necessities of their breth- 
ren; it had the higher effect of promoting gratitude to God, 
On this idea the apostle enlarges in the following verses. 


12. For the administration of this service not only 
supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant alse 
by many thanksgivings unto God. 


Your liberality produces gratitude, for (ὅτι), because, the 


j 


II. CORINTHIANS 9, 13. 225 


administration of this service, ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτοιργίας ταύτης. 
This may mean, ‘ The administration by me of this service of 
yours, i. e. this benefaction of yours, which is a service ren- 
dered to God and his people.’ It is a λειτουργία ; properly a 
evo service, but always in the New Testament (except per- 

aps Phil. 2,30) a religious service such as was rendered by 
the priests in the temple, Luke 1, 23. Heb. 8,6. 9,215 or by 
the Christian ministry, Phil, 2,17. Comp. Rom. 1, 9, Or, it 
may mean, ‘The service which you render by this benefaction,? 
The διακονία, ministry, or service, consisted in the λειτουργία, 
the contribution. This suits better with v. 13, where διακονία 
is used for what the Corinthians did, not for what Paul did, 
Not only supplieth. The Greek is somewhat peculiar; ἐστὶ 
προσαναπληροῦσα, it is not only fully compensatory ... but it is 
(περισσεύουσα) overflowing ; the participles being used as ad- 
jectives expressing the quality of the thing spoken of. The 
want of the saints. ‘Their necessities are not only supplied, 
but your service overflows, or is cma! irae goad of 
good; by means of many thanksgivings to God ; τῷ ϑεῷ de- 
pending on εὐχαριστιῶν as in verse 11. 


13. While by the experiment of this ministration 
they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the 
gospel of Christ, and for (your) liberal distribution unto 
them, and unto all (men). 


There is the same irregularity of grammatical construction 
in this verse as in v. 11; the participle δοξάζοντες here referring 
to πολλῶν, as there πλουτιζόμενοι to ὑμῶν, The sense is, ‘ Many 
thank God, glorifying him (διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης) 
on the occasion of the evidence offered by this service.” The 
preposition διά here expresses the occasional, not the instru- 
mental, or rational cause. It is neither through, nor, on ac- 
count of, but simply by, i. ὁ. occasioned by. The simplest 
explanation of δοκιμή, in this passage, is proof, or evidence ; 
and the genitive, διακονίας, is the genitive of apposition. The 
service was the proof. The thing proved by the service ren- 
dered by the Corinthians to their poor brethren, is what is 
mentioned in the sequel, viz., their obedience and their fellow- 
ship with the saints. Meyer makes δοκιμή mean indoles spec- 
tata, the nature, or internal character. ‘ From the nature of 
this service,” whereby it proved itself to be genuine, or what 


226 Il. CORINTHIANS 9, 13. 


the Christian spirit demanded. Calvin’s explanation is, Speci- 
men idoneum proband Corinthiorum caritati, quod erga fra- 
tres procul remotos tam liberales erant ; which amounts very 
much to what is implied in the first interpretation mentioned. 
They glorify God for your professed subjection. 'The words 
are, ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ THs ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν ; on account of obedience 
to your confession. ὋὉμολογία is always in the New Testament 
used for the profession, or confession, of Christianity. 1 Tim. 
6,12. Heb. 3,1. 4,14. 10,23. Beza, whom our translators 
follow, gives the genitive the force of the participle, professed 
obedience, i. e. obedience which you profess. Others make it 
the genitive of the source, “the obedience which flows from 
your confession;” others again make it the genitive of the 
object, “obedience to your confession.” ‘This gives the best 
sense, and agrees best with the analogous expression, “ obedi- 
ence of Christ,” 10,5. 70 the gospel of Christ, εἰς ebay, 
These words, it is said, cannot properly be constructed either 
with ὑποταγῇ or with ὁμολογίας, because neither ὑποτάσσω nor 
ὁμολογέω is followed by «is. On this account Meyer connects 
the clause in question with δοξάζοντες, ‘they praise God—in 
reference to the gospel.’ But this is forced, and does not 
agree with the following clause; as there, eis πάντας, if con- 
nected with δοξάζοντες, gives no definite sense. De Wette 
connects εἰς εὐαγ. with what precedes, ‘ Your confession—as it 
concerns the gospel? And for your liberal distribution unto 
them, and unto all. This is the second ground of praise to 
God. The words are ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας, the sincerity of 
your fellowship. 'These general terms may, if the context re- 
quired, be taken in the specific sense, “liberality of your con- 
tribution,” as is done by our translators; or they may be 
understood in their wider and more natural sense. The 
ground on which the saints at Jerusalem would praise God 
was the manifestation of the Christian fellowship which the 
Corinthians cherished not only for them, but for all believers. 
It was the consciousness of the communion of saints—the as- 
surance that believers, however separated, or however distin- 
guished as Jews and Gentiles, bond or free, are one body in 
Christ, that called forth their praise to God. And, therefore, 
the apostle says it was the (κοινωνία) fellowship of the Corinthi- 
ans not only towards them, (the saints in Jerusalem,) but 
towards all believers, that was the ground of their praise. 
See Phil. 1, 5, for an example of κοινωνία followed by εἰς, as it 
is in this verse. 


4 
᾿ 
Ἢ 
» 
4 
: 
f. 


Il. CORINTHIANS 9, 14.15. 227 


14. And by their prayer for you, which long after 
you, for the exceeding grace of God in you. 


This verse admits of a threefold construction. It may be 
connected with v. 12, δεήσει being parallel with διὰ πολλῶν εὐχ. 
‘Your liberality is abundant, or overflowing, (περισσεύουσα,) 
through many thanksgivings—and by their prayer for you. 
That is, our liberality is productive of abundant good, not 
only by calling forth thanksgiving to God, but also by leading 
the objects of your kindness to pray for you. This is a full 
compensation. The prayers and blessings of the poor are 
their benefactions to the rich, descending on them as the dew 
on Hermon. Or the connection may be with δοξάζοντες in v. 
13. ‘They glorify God for your obedience, ... and by their 
prayer” But in this case, the natural meaning would be, 
(δεήσει being co-ordinate with ὑποταγῇ), ‘They glorify God for 
your subjection—and for their prayer.” This does not give a 
good sense. Believers do not glorify God for their prayers. 
Others, as Meyer, take αὐτῶν ἐπιποϑούντων together as the 
genitive absolute, and καί, not as and, but also. ‘ You (Co- 
rinthians) manifest your fellowship for them—they also with 
prayer for you earnestly longing for you” This gives a perti- 
nent sense. The first mentioned explanation is, however, 

nerally preferred. br the exceeding grace of God in you. 

hat is, on account of, (διὰ τὴν xdpw,) the surpassing grace, or 
favour of God manifested towards or upon you (ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν) ; in 
that he had rendered them so liberal, and so filled them with 
a Christian spirit, 


15. Thanks (be) unto God for his unspeakable 
gift. 

According to Calvin, and perhaps the majority of com- 
mentators, the gift to which Paul refers, is that spoken of in 
the context, viz., the grace bestowed on the Corinthians, or 
the good effect anticipated from their liberality. Confident 
that the Corinthians would be liberal, and that their liberality 
would excite the gratitude of their suffering brethren, and 
cement the union between the Jewish and Gentile converts, 
the apostle breaks forth in this expression of thanksgiving to 
God, for bringing about so happy a consummation. But the 
language is too strong for this, God’s unspeakable gift is his 
Son This, according to the analogy of Scripture, is that one 


298 II. CORINTHIANS 10. 


great, supreme, all-comprehending gift, which is here intend- 


ed. This is the more natural, because it is Paul’s wont, when — 


speaking either of the feeble love, or trivial gifts of believers, 
one to another, to refer in contrast to the infinite love and 


unspeakable gift of God in Christ to us. 8,9. Eph.5,1. It is” 


his habit also to introduce ejaculations of adoration or thanks. 
giving into the midst, or at the close of his teachings or ex- 
hortations. Rom. 1, 25. 9,5. 1 Cor. 15,17. 1 ΤΊπι. 1.17. The 


passage, therefore, ought to stand, as we doubt not the vast 


majority of the readers of the Bible understand it, as an out- 
burst of gratitude to God for the gift of his Son. 


Lass 
wry 


CHAPTER X. 


Paul deprecates the necessity of asserting his authority and of exercising his 
power to punish the disobedient, vs. 1-6. He confronts his opposers 
with the assertion of divinely derived power, vs. 9-11. He shows that 
he claims authority only over those who were committed to his care, 
vs. 12-18. 


Pauls assertion of his authority and vindication of his 
apostolic prerogatives. 


THE remarkable change in the whole tone and style of this 
portion of the epistle, from the beginning of the 10th chapter 
to near the end of the 13th, has attracted the attention of 
every careful reader. The contrast between this and the pre- 
ceding portions of the epistle is so great, that some have con- 
cluded that they are separate letters, written at different 
times and under different circumstances. There is no exter- 
nal authority for this conjecture, and it is not only unnecex 
sary, but inconsistent with the facts of the case. The same 
topics are presented, and there is in 12,18 reference to the 
mission of Titus, spoken of in the earlier chapters. It is an 
adequate explanation of the change in question, that in chs, 
1-9, Paul had in his mind, and was really addressing, the 
faithful and obedient portion of the church, whereas he has 
here in view the unreasonable and wicked false teachers and 
their adherents, who not only made light of his authority, but 


ΒΑ ...ὕ.ν... .. 


II. CORINTHIANS 10, 1. 229 


corrupted the gospel, which he was appointed to propagate 
and defend. He therefore naturally assumes a tone of author- 
ity and severity. Satisfied of his divine mission, and conscious 
of supernatural power, he cautioned them not to rely too much 
on his forbearance. He was indeed as a man humble, and, if 
they chose, insignificant ; but there was slumbering in his arm 
an energy which they would do well not to provoke. He had 
no desire to exercise in Corinth the authority with which 
Christ had invested him for the purpose of bringing down all 
opposition. He would give them a fair trial, and wait to see 
how far they would be obedient, before he punished their dis- 
obedience, vs, 1-6. They should not judge by appearance, 
or set themselves up on the ground of their fancied advan- 
tages, because whatever they had, he had in larger measure, 
vs. 7.8. He had no intention to frighten them by his epistles 
—which they said were written in a tone he would not dare 
to assume when present—for they would find that, when oc- 
casion called for it, he could be as bold when present as when 
he was absent, vs. 9-11. They were subject to his apostolic 
authority. He usurped nothing in exercising the powers of 
his office over the churches which he had himself founded. 
He did not interfere with the jurisdiction of the other apos- 
tles, or undertake the special oversight of churches founded 
by others. Macedonia and Achaia were within the sphere of 
his operations, and he hoped to preach the gospel far beyond 
those limits in regions where it had never been heard, vs. 
12-16. His confidence was not self-confidence, but confidence 
in God. His self-commendation amounted to nothing, unless 
the Lord commended him. Paul constantly felt that in him- 
self he could do nothing, but in the Lord he could do all 
things, vs. 17. 18. 


1. Now I Paul myself beseech you, by the meek- 
ness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence (am) 
base among you, but being absent am bold toward 
you. 

He enters without any preamble or circumlocution on his 
new subject, and places himself face to face with his unscrupu- 
lous opponents. He says, J Paul myself. He rat 


ploys the first person plural when speaking of himself. Here, 
and throughout this context, he makes his individuality promi- 


230 11, CORINTHIANS 10, 1. 


nent, in saying I. This is rendered the more emphatic by the 


addition of the word myself; αὐτὸς ἐγώ, 7 myself, the man whom 


you so despise and calumniate. Comp. Gal. 5,2. Eph. 3,1. 
Philemon, 19. In this case the expression is so emphatie that 
many suppose that Paul here began to write with his own 
hand; as though he were so excited, that he seized the pen 
from his amanuensis, and says, ‘I Paul myself now write to 


you. This, however, is unnecessary, and unsustained by any 
thing in the context. Beseech you by the meekness and gen- 


tleness of Christ. 'That is, the meekness and gentleness which 
belonged to Christ, and which, therefore, his disciples are 
bound to imitate. To beseech dy (διά), is to beseech on ac- 
count of, or out of regard to. The request is enforced by a 
reference to the obligation of Christians to be meek and gen- 
tle as was their Lord. Matt. 11,29. Is.42,2. In Rom. 12,1, 
we have a similar expression, “I beseech you by the mercies 
of God.” See Phil. 2,1. The words πραύτης and ἐπιείκεια dif- 
fer very much as our words meekness and gentleness do; the 
former referring more to the inward virtue, the latter to its 
outward expression. As Christians are bound to be meek and 
gentle, Paul begged the Corinthians not to force him to be 
severe. He describes himself as his opposers described him, 
as craven when present, and a braggart when absent. Who 
in presence am base among you. In presence, κατὰ πρόσωπον, 
coram, before, towards the face of any one, here opposed to 
ἀπών, absent. The word ταπεινός, literally, low ; then lowly, 
humble. It is commonly used in a good sense. Our Lord 
says of himself that he was, ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, lowly in heart, 
and his followers are always described as the lowly. But the 
word also means downcast, as in 7, 6, and thence it sometimes 


expresses depression when it is the effect of the want of cour-. 


age. This is its meaning here. But being absent am bold 
towards you. Bold, in the sense opposite to base, or craven. 
This word also (Jafpéw) is commonly used in a good sense, 
5,6. It is sg tay context which gives it a different shade 
of meaning. Paul was regarded by his enemies as in heart a 
coward, and his boldness as merely assumed when there was 
no danger to confront. No one (except Riickert) now be- 
lieves this. True heroism was never more ftly exemplified 
than in the life of this apostle, who against numbers, wealth 
and power, always was true to his convictions; who encoun- 
tered all manner of dangers and sufferings in the service of 
Christ, and whose whole conduct showed that he was ready 


δ 
; 
4 
4 
4 


——————— a a 


Il. CORINTHIANS 10, 2. 231 


not only to be bound, but to die for the name of the Lord 
Jesus. Acts 21, 13. 


2. But I beseech (you), that I may not be bold 
when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I 
think to be bold against some, which think of us as if 
we walked according to the flesh. 


The particle (δέ), but, serves to resume the exhortation in 
the first clause of ν. 1. There it is (παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς) I exhort 
you, here it is (δέομαι) I beseech. This shows that ὑμᾶς and 
not ϑεόν is to be supplied as the object of the verb. The 
sense is, ‘I beseech you,’ not, ‘I pray God? What Paul be- 
seeches of them is, that they would not force him to have 
recourse to severity. This ke expresses by saying, τὸ μὴ παρὼν 
ϑαῤῥῆσαι, that I may not be bold when present. The article 
(τό) serves to render the object of the verb more prominent ; 
and παρών is in the nominative because the subject of both 
verbs is the same. 70 δὲ bold, i. 6. to act with decision and 
courage; to exhibit the character which the opponents of the 
apostle said he assumed only when absent. With the δορ 
dence, i. 6. with the conviction of his right to exercise the au- 
thority which he claimed, and with the consciousness of power 
to carry his decisions into effect. Wherewith I think ; Xoyi- 
ζομαι, which means to reckon, to reason, and then, as here, to 
purpose. Paul had determined in his own mind that if per- 
suasion failed to bring his opponents to a right state of mind, 
he would resort to that power with which God had armed 
him to put down all opposition. The Vulgate gives the word 
λογίζομαι a passive sense, gua existimor, ‘which I am thought, 
or supposed to assume.? So Luther, “die man mir zumisset,” 
which men ascribe tome. Bengel and many other commen- 
tators adopt the same interpretation. This has the advantage 
of giving λογίζομαι and the following participle λογιζομένους 
the same sense. But it is objected to this interpretation that 
it would require ἀπών to be used. ‘The confidence wherewith 
Iam thought when absent to assume.’ The common interpre- 
tation, therefore, is to be preferred. 170 be bold. The word 
is here not Jappjoo as before, but τολμῆσαι, to dare; to act 
without fear and without regard to consequences. Pau! had 
determined, if forced to it, to set his opponents at defiance 
and to act with utter disregard of all they could say or do, 


232 II. CORINTHIANS 10, 3. 


The persons against whom he had determined to exercise this 
severity, were those who think of us, he says, as if we walked 
according to the flesh. 'The word flesh sometimes means the 
body, sometimes it expresses the secondary idea of weakness, 
sometimes, and most frequently in Paul’s epistles, our corrupt 
nature. Beza gives it here the second of these meanings, 
He understands Paul as describing his opponents as those who 


regarded him as weak and cowardly, or, as invested with 


nothing more than human powers (non alio preesidio freti, 
quam quod pre nobis ferimus), so that, as Bengel says, “ they 
may despise us with impunity.” But this is not only incon- 
sistent with the scriptural use of the word “to walk,” which, 
in its figurative sense, refers to moral deportment, but also 
with the familiar use of the phrase (κατὰ σάρκα), after the flesh. 
See the next verse, and Rom. 8, 1, 4.5.13. The persons re- 
ferred to were those who regarded the apostle not only as an 
ordinary man, but as acting under the control of his corrupt 
nature, governed by selfish or malicious feelings, and relying 
on himself. 


3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war 
after the flesh. 


There is here, so to speak, a play on the word flesh, which 
is used in somewhat different senses. Paul did indeed walk 
in the flesh, he was a man, and a mere man, not only invested 
with a body, but subject to all the infirmities of human nature ; 
but he did not war after the flesh. What was human and 
worldly neither determined his conduct, nor was the ground 
of his confidence. The phrase to be in the flesh has vari- 
ous meanings according to the connection in which it is used. 
In 1 Tim. 3, 16, it is said, “‘God was manifested in the flesh,” 
i.e. in human nature. In Rom. 8, 8. 9, to be “in the flesh,” 
means to be in an unrenewed state. In Phil. 1, 22. 24, “to 
live,” or, “to abide in the flesh,” means to live, or abide, in 
the body. Here the phrase has substantially the same mean- 
ing, but with the accessory idea of weakness and exposure to 
temptation. ‘Though he was a man, and therefore compassed 
with the infirmities incident to humanity, yet, d&c.’ “ Hie,” 
says Calvin, “* Ambulare in carne significat in mundo versari: 
quod alibi dicit, habitare in corpore (supra 5,6). Erat enim 
inclusus in corporis sui ergastulo: sed hoc non impediebat 


SS a ΡῸ 


II. CORINTHIANS 10, 4. 233 


quominus Spiritus sancti virtus mirifice se exsereret in ejus 
infirmitate.” 
Instead of the general expression “ to walk,” Paul uses, in 
the second clause, the more specific term, “to war.” We war 
not ; οὗ στρατεύομεϑα, Στρατεύω means, to go to war, to make 
a campaign ; στρατεύομαι means, to serve as a soldier, to fight. 
The war here referred to, is that which the apostle waged 
against error and every thing opposed to the gospel. This 
war, he says, he did not conduct (κατὰ σάρκα) after the flesh ; 
that is, governed by the flesh, or relying on it. He was not 
uided by the principles of ordinary men, who act under the 
influence of their corrupt nature; neither did he depend for 
success on any thing the flesh (i. e. human nature) could afford. 
ΤῸ was governed by the Spirit and relied upon the Spirit. 
* What Paul says of himself, is true of all the faithful ministers 
of Christ. They bear about an incomparable treasure in 
earthen vessels, Therefore, although they are compassed 
with infirmities, nevertheless the spiritual power of God is 
resplendent in them.”—Catvix. The connection of this 
verse, as indicated by the particle γάρ (for), is either with 
the middle clause of the preceding verse, ‘I am determined 
to be bold towards the opponents of the truth, for though I 
walk in the flesh, I do not war after the flesh ;? or, as is often 
the case in Paul’s epistles, the yap refers to a thought omitted. 
‘Some think that I walk after the flesh—that is not true—for 
though I walk in the flesh, I do not war after it? The latter 
seems the more natural and forcible. 


4. (For the weapons of our warfare (are) not car- 
nal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of 
strong holds). 


This proves that the main idea intended by warring after 
the flesh, is warrmg with human weapons, relying on human 
resources, In the war in which Paul was engaged, his confi- 
dence was not in himself, not in human reason, not in the 
power of argument or eloquence, not in the resources of cun- 
ning or management, but simply and only in the supernatural 
power of God. ‘We war not after the flesh, for our weapons 
are not carnal.’ That is, such as the flesh, or human nature, 
furnishes, and which therefore in their own nature are carnal, 
or human. By weapons is, of course, to be understood all the 


234 II. CORINTHIANS 10, 6. 


means which the apostle employed in the defence and propa- 
gation of the truth. Those means, he says, were mighty 
through God. The words are δυνατὰ τῷ Jeo, which are vari- 
ously explained. Some, as Beza, Grotius and others, give the 
dative the force of the ablative—mighty by God—afflatu Dei, 
as Erasmus expresses it. Others regard the expression as a 
Hebraic superlative. Others say the meaning is, mighty for 
God, i. e. for his use, weapons which are powerful in his hand. 
The common explanation is, ‘mighty to God,’ 1. e. such means 
as even God himself regards as mighty; mighty in his estima- 
tion. Of Nineveh it is said it was, πόλις μεγάλη τῷ Fea, a city 
great to God, a version which strictly answers to the Hebrew. 
Reference is also made to Acts 7, 20, where Moses is said to 
have been ἀστεῖος τῷ Jeo, beautiful to God, i. 6. in his sight; 
and 2 Peter 3,14. These weapons were divinely powerful to 
the pulling down of strong holds, zpos καϑαίρεσιν ὀχυρωμάτων. 
The last word is most appropriately rendered strong holds, as 
it is from ὀχυρός (from ἔχω), haltbar, what may be held, what 
is secure from assault. The opposers of the gospel felt that 
they were so entrenched, so protected by the fortresses which 
they occupied, that they despised the ministers of Christ and 
derided their efforts. What these strong-holds were the 
apostle tells us in what follows. This verse is properly 
marked as a parenthesis, not only in our version, but in al- 
most all the critical editions of the Greek Testament, because 
the grammatical construction of vy. 5 connects it immediately 
with v. 3. 


5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing 
that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and 
bringing into’ captivity every thought to the obedience 
of Christ. 


As just intimated, the participle καϑαιροῦντες (pulling 
down) depends on the verb orparevopeda at the end of v. 3. 
‘We war—pulling down, &c.’? According to this view v. 3 is 
parenthetical. Riickert, De Wette and others, however, on 
the ground that v. 4 contains the main idea, which is carried 
out in vy, 8, prefer considering the construction of the passage 
as irregular, the participle being used here as in 9, 11. 18, 
They therefore connect this verse with what immediately pre- 
cedes. ‘Our weapons are mighty—in that we pull down, &c.’ 


II. CORINTHIANS 10, 5. 235 


What the apostle was thus confident he could cast down were 
imaginations (Χογισμούς), thoughts, i. e. the opinions, or con- 
victions of those who set themselves and the deductions of 
their own reason against the truth of God. Compare 1 Cor. 
1, 17-31, and Rom. 1, 21-23. And every high thing (ὕψωμα), 
every tower, or fortress; the same as ὀχύρωμα iny. 4. Not 
persons, but thoughts, are intended by this figure. It is every 
thing which the pride of human reason exalts against the 
knowledge of God ; i. e. that revelation of himself which God 
has made in the gospel. 1 Cor. 3, 18-20. The conflict to 
which the apostle here refers is that between truth and error, 
between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world. 
When the gospel was first proclaimed it found itself in conflict 
with all the forms of religion and philosophy then prevailing 
among men. ‘To the wise of this world the gospel appeared 
as foolishness, It was, however, the wisdom and power of 
God. The conflict then begun has continued ever since, and 
is now as deadly as at any former period. Men of science 
and philosophers are as confident in their conclusions, and as 
much disposed to exalt themselves, or their opinions against 
the knowledge of God as ever. There is no doubt as to the 
issue of this contest. It is a contest between God and man, 
in which, of course, God must prevail. The instructive lesson 
which the apostle designs here to inculeate is, that this war- 
fare must not be conducted on the part of the advocates of 
the gospel, with carnal weapons. They must not rely upon 
their own resources and attempt to overcome their enemies 
by argument. They must not become philosophers and turn 
the gospel into a philosophy. This would be to make it a hn- 
man conflict on both sides. It would be human reason against 
human reason, the intellect of one man against the intellect of 
another man. Paul told the Corinthians in his former epistle, 
that he did not appear among them as a philosopher, but as a 
witness; he came not with the words of man’s wisdom; he 
did not rely for suecess on his powers of argument or of per- 
suasion, but on the demonstration of the Spirit. The faith, 
which he laboured to secure, was not to be founded on the 
wisdom of men, but on the power of God; not on arguments 
addressed to the understanding, but on the testimony of God. 
That testimony has the same effect which intuition has. It 
reveals the truth to the mind and conscience as self-evident ; 
and therefore it cannot be resisted. A rationalistic Christian, 
a philosophizing theologian, therefore, lays aside the divine 


ἜΤ ΎΥ ΥΥ Ὁ 7 «ὦ, ᾿χυ ιν Ν ΨΥ = “ΡΞ er eV aS they. oJ ———- Tay pee Nat Ye ee ΤῈ ἘΞ ae ὑ λα. 54. y 


236 II. CORINTHIANS 10, 6. 


for the human, the wisdom of God for the wisdom of men, 
the infinite and infallible for the finite and fallible. The suce- 
cess of the gospel depends on its being presented, not as the 
word of man, but as the word of God; not as something to 
be proved, but as something to be believed. It was on this 

rinciple Paul acted, and hence he was in no degree intimi- 
dated by the number, the authority, the ability, or the learn- 
ing of his opponents. He was confident that he could cast 
down all their proud imaginations, because he relied not on 
himself but on God whose messenger he was. 

And bringing into captivity every thought, πᾶν νόημα, 
This word means either thought, or the mind, that which 
thinks. 3,14. 4,4. Phil. 4,7. Hence it may be translated 
thought, as it is in our version; or as in the Vulgate, “ omnem 
intellectum,” every understanding, and by Luther, “alle Ver- 
nunft,” Although the modern commentators make an outcry 
against this latter translation, it really differs little from the 
former. It does not matter much whether we say that human 
reason must be subjected, or that all the products of human 
reason (every thought) must be subjected, It amounts to the 
same thing. Both forms of statement are equally true. It-is 
the indispensable condition of salvation that our understand- 
ing should be brought into captivity, led submissive, as though 
bound, into the obedience of Christ, εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
Agreeably to the figure in the context, the obedience of Christ 
is conceived of as a place, or fortress, into which the captive 
is led. The sense is the same as the dative, τῇ ὑπακοῇ τοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ, would have expressed. We must renounce dependence 
on our own understanding and submit implicitly, as obedient 
children, to the teaching of Christ. He who would be wise, 
must become a fool. 1 Cor. 3, 18. 


6. And having in a readiness to revenge all diso- 
bedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. 


And having in a readiness ; ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες, holding our- 
selves ready, i. 6, being ready, He had the ability and the 
determination to do what he declares he would do. Com- 
pre ἑτοίμως ἔχω, 12,14. The participle ἔχοντες is connected 

y καί with καϑαιροῦντες. of the preceding verse. ‘We war— 
casting down all that opposes itself—and ready, &c.’ 170 
avenge all disobedience ; ἐκδικῆσαι, to maintain, or to exact 
justice, or satisfaction, to punish, -Ad/ disobedience, i. 6. every 


II. CORINTHIANS 10, 7. 237 


ease of disobedience. The gospel, being the word of God, is 
divinely efficacious, and is certain ultimately to triumph over 
all opposition. This, however, does not imply that all will 
obey it. In the apostolic churches, there were those who cor- 
rupted the word of God, Judaizing or philosophizing teachers 
and their followers, who refused to obey the truth. Such 
persons Paul announced his ability and his determination to 
unish, They were in the church, for what, he said in his 
ee epistle, have I to do to judge them that are without ? 
1 Cor. 5,12. They had voluntarily submitted themselves to 
his jurisdiction, and he therefore had a legitimate authorit 
over them. What was the nature of the punishment whic 
he threatened, he does not intimate. It may be that he pur- 
posed nothing more than excommunication. The fact, how- 
ever, that the apostles were armed with supernatural power, 
that they exercised that power for the punishment of offend- 
ers, 1 Cor. 5,5. 1 Tim. 1, 20, and the whole tone of the pas- 
sage are in favour of the assumption that Paul was determined 
to use all the means at his command to suppress the insolence, 
and to destroy the power of the corrupters of the truth in 
Corinth. He gives what he had said a special application by 
adding, when your obedience is fulfilled. That is, he would 
not resort to severity until all other means had failed, and un- 
til it had become fully manifest who among the Corinthians 
yevid submit to God, and who would persist in their disobe- 
nce, 


7. Do ye look on things after the outward appear- 
ance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, 
let him of himself think this again, that, as he (is) 
Christ’s, even so (are) we Christ’s. 


Abrupt transitions are characteristic of this epistle. Paul 
having in the preceding verses so strongly asserted his apos- 
tolic authority and supernatural power, turns to those who 
denied the validity of his claims, and calls upon them to give 
a reason for skepticism. He was thus led to vindicate his 
title to the apostolic office and to his special jurisdiction over 
the church of Corinth. This vindication extends to 12, 18, 
After which he resumes the subject broached in the preceding 
verses of this chapter, viz., what he purposed to do when he 
again visited Corinth. | 


238 II. CORINTHIANS 10, 7. 


Do ye look on things after the outward appearance ? τὰ 
κατὰ πρόσωπον βλέπετε. This clause may be taken interroga- 
tively, as by most commentators, or imperatively, or declara- 
tively. If mterrogatively, the sense may be, ‘Do ye regard, 
or take into view, only what is external? Do you judge of 
me from my personal appearance, manner, and speech?’ It 
would seem that a judgment founded on such grounds as’ 
these, led the false teachers to regard the apostle with con- 
tempt. Or, the meaning is, ‘Do you regard only external 
advantages? Such as being a minister of Christ, being a He- 
brew, an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, ὅσο. 11,22. In 
favour of this view is the use of πρόσωπον in this epistle, 5, 12. 
11,1. Seealso Matt. 22,16. Mark 12, 14; the parallel passage 
in 11, 18 (where κατὰ τὴν σάρκα answers to κατὰ πρόσωπον hevel δὲ 
and the context, wich goes to show that the things which 
Paul’s opponents regarded, and on which they prided them- 
selves, were their supposed external advantages. Those who 
take βλέπετε as imperative understand the passage thus: 
‘Look at what is before your eyes, i. 6. at what is evident to 
all. Ifyou are thus and so,soam 1.) Calvin and others take 
the verb as in the indicative. ‘ Ye do regard what is external 
—and therefore despise me” The first interpretation, for the 
reasons stated, is to be preferred. Jf any man trust to him- 
self. The use of ris (any oné), in this passage, and of the 
singular number in vs. 10 and 11, and in 11, 4, has led to the 
conjecture that there was in Corinth one particular opponent 
of the apostle to whom in this whole context he refers. But 
it is evident from the general drift of the epistle that it was a 
whole class of persons who had arrayed themselves against 
Paul’s authority. Trust to himself, πέποιϑεν ἑαυτῷ, is persuad- 
ed concerning himself, that he is Christ's. What that means 
is somewhat doubtful. It may be taken in the most general 
sense, ‘If any thinks that he is a Christian,’ i. e. belongs to 
Christ as every believer does; or, ‘If any man thinks that he 
is 2 minister of Christ ;’ or, ‘If any man thinks that he stands 
in a peculiar relation to Christ. It is probable from 1 Cor, 
1,10 that there were certain persons in Corinth who said, 
‘We are of Christ,’ as claiming some nearer connection with 
him than that which belonged to other believers or to other 
ministers. Whether this claim rested on their having seen 
Christ in the flesh, or on relationship to his kinsmen, is mere 
matter of conjecture, Still as the claim existed, it is most 
likely referred to here. Let him of himself, i. 6. without its 


— i ee 


, 
& 
A 


ΠΤ. CORINTHIANS τὸ, 8. 239 


being suggested by others. The fact was so plain that it 
needed not to be asserted. Let him think this again, i. e. let 
him consider the matter again. The last reflection will con- 
vince him that as he is Christ’s, so are we. There was no re- 
lationship which these false teachers could rightfully claim to 
Christ to which Paul was not equally entitled. They were in 
no respect his superiors. They had no advantage which did 
not belong equally to him. 


8. For though I should boast somewhat more of 
our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edifi- 
eation, and not for your destruction, [ should not be 
ashamed. 


Paul might have said much more than he had said in what 
recedes. He was not only all that his opponents claimed to 
ἴω but more. He had an authority and power to which they 
could make no pretensions, He therefore here says that if he 
had set forth higher claims, he should not be ashamed—facts 
would not prove those claims to be unfounded. or though, 
ἐάν τε γὰρ καί, for even in case, &c. The connection is with 
the words “we are Christ’s.’ ‘We are Christ’s, in all the 
senses in which you can claim to be, for we have received 
more from him.’ The greater includes the less. Somewhat 
more, περισσότερόν τι, i, 6. Somewhat more than was claimed in 
vs. 83-6, or more than ‘being in Christ,’ which might be said 
of others as well as of the apostle. Paul had an authority 
which extended beyond the limits of any claim which he had 
yet advanced. Ἐξουσία includes the ideas of power and au- 
thority. The apostle had authority (i. 6. the right to rule) 
and he had ability, inherent power, to enforce that authority. 
Which the Lord hath given (or rather, gave) to us. The au- 
thority in question was given when he was constituted an 
apostle, with not only a commission to exercise dominion, but 
a grace, or inward gift of the Spirit, rendering him infallible 
as a teacher and investing him with supernatural power. The 
giver of this authority and power was the Lord, i. e. Christ. 
Christ, therefore, as the author of supernatural gifts, is a di- 
vine person, for to give such gifts is a prerogative of God. 
The design for which Paul was not endowed, was not his own 
exaltation, not the accomplishment of any worldly end, not, 
as he says, “for your destruction,” 1, ὁ, not that he might be 
1] 3 


240 II. CORINTHIANS 10, 9. 


able to put down his personal enemies, but for edification, 
i.e. the building up of the church in holiness and peace. 
Power in the church comes not from the civil magistrate, nor 
from the people, but from Christ only. He is, as Calvin sa 

Solus Dominus et Magister. And this power can be legiti- 
mately exercised only for the edification of the church. 
When exercised for other objects, or for the destruction of 
the church, then it should be disowned and resisted. Even 
an apostle, or an angel from heaven, who should preach any 
other gospel—teach or require any thing contrary to the word 
of God—would be accursed. And of this contrariety, from 
the necessity of the case, and from the authority of Scripture, 
the people, i. e. those who are required to believe and obey, 
are (at their peril) to be the judges. If they reject a true 
apostle, their sin is as great as if they gave ear to false teach- 
ers. Having the inward teaching of the Spirit, they know 
of the doctrine whether it be of God. | 


9. That I may not seem as if I would terrify you 
by letters. 


The connection of this clause (iva μὴ δόκω) is somewhat 
doubtful. If it belongs immediately to the preceding words, 
the sense is, ‘I should not be ashamed—in order that I should 
seem,’ i. e. God would so order it that I should not appear as 
an empty boaster. But this is evidently unnatural. The de- 
sign of God in sustaining the apostle, and giving him a victory 
over the enemies of the truth, was something higher than pre- 
serving him from being regarded as a boaster. A very large 
number of commentators connect this verse with the 11th, 
throwing the 10th into a parenthesis. ‘That I may not seem 
to terrify you—let such an one think, &c,.’ But neither in 
this way is the connection natural or logical; and v. 11 evi- 
dently refers to v. 10, and would not be intelligible if that 
verse were omitted; verse 11, therefore, is not a parenthesis. 
A clause with iva, as we have seen before in this epistle, (eom- 
pare also Gal. 2, 10.) often depends on some word or words 
omitted but easily supplied from the context, In this case we 
may supply, ‘ ZAis 7 say.? ‘This I say in order that I may 
not appear, ὅθ. So Luther (“ Das sage ich aber”), Beza, and 
many others. As if I would terrify, ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν, This is 
the only instance in the New Testament where ἄν after a con- 
junction is used with the infinitive, Winer resolyes it into 


EE —— a 


ee ee ee “τ τ τὸς 


Il. CORINTHIANS 10, 10. 241 


ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβοῖμι ὑμᾶς, tanguam velin vos terrere, which agrees 
with our translation. These particles serve to soften the ex- 

ession, and are equivalent to as if perhaps, or, so to speak. 
There is evident allusion to the false representations made by 
the false teachers, that Paul wrote in the authoritative tone 
which he assumed merely to frighten his readers, having 
neither the power nor the purpose to carry his threats into 
execution. By letters, or, by the letters, i. e. the letters which 
he had already written or intended to write. 


10. For (his) letters, say they, (are) weighty and 
powerful; but (his) bodily presence (is) weak, and (his) 
speech contemptible. 


There was reason for his not wishing to appear as assum- 
ing a tone of threatening in his letters, for this was the very 
reproach cast upon him. 7718 letters, they say, (φησί, here, as 
often, used impersonally, ‘one says, sagt man,) are weighty 
(βαρεῖαι, i, 6. impressive) and powerful, (i ») including the 
ideas of vigour, authority and severity. But is bodily pres- 
ence is weak, This passage, probably more than any other, 
has given rise to the impression, in accordance with a tradi- 
tion neither very ancient nor well sustained, that Paul was 
small in stature, weak and unattractive in his personal appear- 
ance, The words here used, however, even supposing that 
this language of his enemies expressed the truth, do not neces- 
sarily imply this. The phrase ἡ παρουσία τοῦ σώματος probably 
refers not to his personal appearance, but to his deportment. 
He wrote boldly, but acted feebly. There was not that ener- 

y and decision in his acts which one would expect from his 
eaten This was the representation of his enemies; the 
truth of which, however, the apostle denies. The same re- 
mark applies to the next clause, his speech contemptible. This 
does not refer to feebleness of voice, but to the impression 
made by his oral instructions and addresses. He dared not 
assume any such authority in speaking to the ae that he 
did in writing to them. ‘The whole history of the apostle, his 
unceasing labours, his constant journeyings, his innumerable 
sufferings which he sustained so heroically, prove that he was 
not physically a man of feeble constitution. And his own 
declarations, as well as his clearly revealed character, prove 
that there was no su¢h want of correspondence between his 


a. 2 ee ee ee Se ee eee ΨΥ ee ee eR ἡ, Υ, a ee ee 


242 II. CORIN THIANS 10, 11.12. 


letters and his actions as the false teachers in Corinth, to whom 
he was probably personally unknown, endeavoured to make 
the people believe. 


11. Let such an one think this, that such as we are 
in word by letters when we are absent, such (will w we 
be) also in deed when we are present. 


Let such an one, i. 6. any one, not necessarily implying 
that there was only one person who had set himself wp in op- 

sition to the apostle. That such as we are in word, ὅσο. 
t was admitted that his letters were energetic. He assures 
them that, when present, his deeds would correspond to his 
words, His denunciations would not prove idle threats. 


12. For we dare not make ourselves of the number, 
or compare ourselves with some that commend them- 
selves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, 
and comparing themselves among themselves, are not 
wise. 


In confirmation of his declaration that his acts would be 
found to correspond with his words, he adds, ‘For Iam not 
like those, who having nothing to recommend them, commend 
themselves. We dare not (οὐ τολμῶμεν, we cannot bring our- 
selves to, or, we cannot prevail on ourselves to. Rom. 5, 7. 
1 Cor. 6, 1) make ourselves of the number, or si an our- 
selves ; (ἐγκρῖναι ἢ ἢ συγκρῖναι, enrol ourselves among, or place 
ourselves by,) some who commend themselves. The "reference 
is obviously to the false teachers, whose only reliance was self- 
laudation. So far this verse is plain. The latter part of the 
passage is exceedingly difficult, and has been very variously 
explained. There are three classes of interpretation, two of 
which proceed on the assumption of the correctness of the 
common text, and the third is founded on a different reading. 
According to the first general view, the αὐτοί refers to the 
apostle himself. He is assumed to contrast himself, in this 
verse, with his opponents. ‘The sense, according to some 
then is, ‘They commend themselves, but we, measuring our- 
selves by ourselves, (i. e. we do not overestimate ourselves, 
but determine our importance by our performances,) and 


ee eS ee 


— 


II. CORINTHIANS 10, 12. 243 


comparing ourselves with ourselves, not with these wise men.’ 
According to this view, συνιοῦσιν, at the end of the verse, is a 
spe τὰς and is used ironically in reference to the false teach- 
ers. To this interpretation it is objected, 1. That συνιοῦσιν 
would require the article in order to express the meaning 
given to it; and 2. That it is plainly inconsistent with the 
ἡμεῖς δέ of the next verse, which are antithetical to the αὐτοί 
of this verse. ‘They do so—but we do so” Others, who 
make the latter part of this verse refer to the apostle, refer 
συνιοῦσιν also to him. ‘We measure ourselves by ourselves, 
and compare ourselves with ourselves, we who, as they say, 
are unwise.’ Then the ἡμείς δέ of verse 13th refers to this last 
clause. ‘They say we are unwise, but we, &c. This, how- 
ever, is liable to the same objections, and gives a sense un- 
suited to the context. According to the second interpreta- 
tion, αὐτοί in this verse refers to the false teachers, with whom, 
in the next verse, Paul contrasts himself, (jets δέ.) and συνι- 
οὖσιν is the third person plural, as from the verb συνιέω, as in 
Matt. 13,13. ‘They measuring themselves by themselves, 
and comparing themselves with themselves, are not wise; but 
we, ἄς. This is the view of the passage adopted by our 
translators, after Chrysostom, Calvin, and Luther. It is also 
sanctioned by De Wette, Meyer, and Rickert, and many oth- 
ers. These false teachers commended themselves, confined 
their views to themselves, despised or disregarded all others, 
intruding into other men’s labours. Paul, on the contrary, 
boasted not of himself; he relied only on God and his grace, 
and he kept himself within his own limits, not appropriating 
to himself the fruits of the labours of other men, The third 
mode of interpreting this passage assumes that the text afford- 
ed by the Western, as distinguished from the Eastern mann- 
scripts, is correct. Those authorities omit οὐ συνιοῦσι, ἡμεῖς δέ, 
so that αὐτοί (ines) is the nominative to καυχησόμεϑα in v. 13, 
if that verb be retained. ‘They commend themselves; but 
we, measuring ourselves by ourselves, and comparing our- 
selves with ourselves, will not boast as to things beyond our 
measure.’ Fritsche and Billroth, on the authority of the Co- 
dex Clarom., omit also καυχησόμεϑα, and connect the participles 
μετζοῦντες and συγκρίνοντες with καυχώμενοι of v. 15, thus bring- 
ing out substantially the same sense, but rendering the sen- 
tence longer and more complicated. The meaning afforded 
by this new reading is simple and pertinent. Since, however, 
the critical authorities by which it is supported are compara- 


244 II. CORINTHIANS 10, 13. 


tively few and of a secondary class, the great body of editors 
adhere to the common text. If that text is correct, then the 
interpretation given in our English version is the most natural 
and suitable. Calvin applies this whole passage, with his 
usual vigour, to the monks of his day. Hujus loci expositio 
non aliunde petenda est quam a monachis: nam quum sint 
omnes fere indoctissimi asini, et tamen oblonge vestis et cu- 
culli causa docti censeantur: si quis tenuem modo gustum ele- 
gantioris literature habeat, plumas suas instar pavonis fastuose 
extendit: spargitur de eo mirabilis fama, adoratur inter 
sodales. At si seposita cuculli larva ventum fuerit ad justum 
examen, deprehenditur vanitas. Cur hoc? Verum quidem 
est vetus proverbium: Audax inscitia: sed inde praecipue 
monachalis insolentissimus ille fastus, quod se metiuntur ex se 
ipsis: nam quum in eorum claustris nihil sit praeter barbari- 
em, illic nihil mirum, si regnet luscus inter czecos. 


13. But we will not boast of things without (our) 
measure, but according to the measure of the rule 
which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach 
even unto you. 


The words εἰς ra ἄμετρα may be taken adverbially, equiva- 
lent to ἀμέτρως, immoderately, beyond what is proper; or, 
since in the latter part of the verse μέτρον is used literally, they 
may be explained as in our version, in reference to things be- 
yond our measure, i, 6, beyond the limits of my apostolic la- 
bours. This idea is clearly presented in the following verses; 
but here the contrast with the preceding verse favours the 
former explanation. The false teachers set no limits to their 
boasting—self-conceit and not facts determined the character 
and amount of their assumptions, and therefore their claims 
were inordinate. Paul expresses his determination to limit 
his claims to his actual gifts and labours. According to the 
measure of the rule, κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος, i, 6, according 
to the measure determined by the rule, or line, that is, the 
measure allotted to him. The κανών is the rule, or measuring 
line, which, so to speak, God used in determining the apostle’s 
gifts and sphere of activity. Paul’s boasting, therefore, was 
not immoderate, but confined to just limits, According to 
Bez κανών is used metonymically for that which is measured ; 
certum et definitum spatium ; the district or diocese measured 


=o ‘ 
EE ee ee ee en 


Il. CORINTHIANS 10, 13. 245 


off to him. But this is not consistent with the ordinary mean- 
ing of the word, or with the context. Which God hath dis- 
tributed to us ; οὗ ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν ὃ ϑεὸς μέτρου, for μέτρου ὃ ἐμέρι- 
σεν ὃ Jecs, by attraction. This clause is in apposition with 
κανόνος, and explains what was the rule or line which deter- 
mined the sphere of his activity. It was not something self- 
assumed, or self-applied, but something which God had 
appointed ; @ measure, he adds, to reach even unto you. It is 
agreeable to Paul’s manner to include two or more related 
ideas in the same form of expression. 70. boast according to 
the measure assigned him, may mean to regulate his boasting 
according to his gifts; or, to boast in reference to what was 
done within the limits assigned him in preaching the gospel. 
Both ideas are here united. In opposition to the false teach- 
ers, who not only boasted of gifts which they did not possess, 
but appropriated to themselves the fruits of other men’s la- 
bours by intruding into churches which they had not founded, 
Paul says he did neither one nor the other. His boasting was 
neither immoderate, nor was it founded on what others had 
done. He invaded no man’s sphere of labour, It was his set- 
tled purpose to preach the gospel where Christ had not been 
named, and not to build on another man’s foundation. Rom. 
15,20. Acting on this Rea Ὅν he had the right to regard 
Corinth as legitimately within his field. His assigned limit of 
labour reached at least that far. He had founded the church 
in that city; others had built thereon. 1 Cor.3,10, The 
Corinthians were his work in the Lord. 1 Cor. 9,1. Over 
them, therefore, if over no others, he had the authority of an 
apostle, It is plain, on the one hand, from the New Testa- 
ment that the apostles had a general agreement among them- 
selves as to their several fields of labour. Paul was to go to 
the Gentiles; Peter, James and John to the Jews. Gal. 2, 9. 
But it is no less plain that they were not confined to any pre- 


scribed limits. They had not, as modern bishops or pastors, 


each his particular diocese or parish. As their authority did 
not arise from their election or appointment, to a particular 
chureh or district, but from their plenary knowledge, infalli- 
bility, and supernatural power, it was the same everywhere, 
and in relation to all churches, Hence we find Paul writing 
to the church in Rome which he had never visited, as well as 
to others who had never seen his face in the flesh, with the 
same authority with which he addressed churches which he 


_ had himself planted. Peter addressed his epistles to churches 


246 Il. CORINTHIANS 10, 14.15. 


within Paul’s sphere of labour; and, according to all tradition, 
St. John presided during the latter years of his life over the 
churches in Asia Minor, founded by the apostle to the Gen- 
tiles. Stillit was a matter of courtesy that one apostle should 
not intrude unnecessarily upon the sphere already occupied b 


another. Paul, at least, determined that he would not build 


upon another man’s foundation. 


14. For we stretch not ourselves beyond (our 
measure), as though we reached not unto you; for 
we are come as far as to you also in (preaching) the 
gospel of Christ. | 


This verse is generally regarded as a parenthesis, although 
some commentators make it the beginning of a new sentence. 
It is logically connected with the last clause of v.13. ‘God 
assigned us a measure extending to you, for not, as not reach- 
ing to you, do we unduly stretch ourselves out ;’ ὑπερεκτείνο- 
μεν ἑαυτούς, do we overstretch ourselves. The present tense is 
used, because the reference is to the sphere of the apostle’s 
authority. Jor we have come as far as you, (ἐφϑάσαμεν.) 
‘Our authority extends to you, for we have come to you in 
preaching the gospel” That is, Corinth was included in the 
region throughout which he had been the first to preach 
Christ. The word φϑάνω properly means, to come, or be, be- 
forehand ; to anticipate; and then, in the aorist, to have come 
already. See Matt. 12,28. Phil. 3,16. 1 Thess, 2,16, This 
sense may be retained here. ‘We have already come even 
unto you.’ He had already reached them and expected soon 
to reach beyond them; see v. 16. 


15. Not boasting of things without (our) measure, 
(that is), of other men’s labours; but having hope, 
when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged 
by you, according to our rule abundantly. 


If verse 14 is parenthetical, then this verse is connected 
with the 13th. ‘We will boast according to our measure— 
not boasting immoderately” Of other men’s labours. This 
is explanatory of the εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα. THe did not boast of what 
other men had done. If the connection is with the 14th verse, 
the participle καυχώμενοι most naturally depends on od ὑπερεκ- 


᾿ 
᾿ 


II. CORINTHIANS 10, 15. 247 


τείνομεν. * We do not stretch ourselves unduly—not boasting, 
ἄς. The reproach to the false teachers here implied is of 
course obvious. They had done what Paul refused to do. 
They came to Corinth after the church had been gathered, 
assumed an authority to which they were not entitled, and 
endeavoured to destroy the influence of the apostle to whom 
the church owed its existence, and the people their hope of 
_ salvation. Jam, says Calvin, liberius pungit pseudo-apostolos, 
. qui quum in alienam messem manus intulissent, audebant 
ο΄ tamen iis obtrectare, qui sudore ac industria locum illis para- 
verant. 

But having hope, when your faith is increased. This 
clause the Vulgate renders, ‘Habentes spem erescentis fidei 
vestre,” This interpretation the words αὐξανομένης τῆς πίστεως 
(your faith being increased) do not admit. Corinth was not 
the limit which Paul had fixed for his field of labour. He had 
the purpose, as soon as the state of the Corinthians would 
allow of his leaving them, to press forward to preach the gos- 
pel in regions beyond them. That we shall he enlarged by 
you, ἐν ὑμῖν μεγαλυνϑῆναι, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and others, 
connect ἐν ὑμῖν with the preceding clause—‘ Your faith being 
increased among you.’ Beza says this is required by the op- 
posite clause, as the advantage was mutual, They were to 
grow in faith among themselves, he was to enlarge his boun- 
daries. But in this case the words ἐν ὑμῖν are redundant, 
They belong to the following word, and are to be rendered 
either by you, or, among you, This depends on the sense 
riven to μεγαλυνϑῆναι, This word is used either literally, as in 
Natt. 23, 5, “‘ They make broad their phylacteries;” or figu- 
ratively, as in Luke 1,58, “The Lord hath made great is 
mercy toward her.” In every other case where it occurs in 
the New Testament it means to praise, to declare great. 
Luke 1, 46, “My soul doth magnify the Lord.” So in Acts 
ὅ, 18. 10,46. 19,17. Phil. 1,20. This meaning of the word 
} 

; 


ΝΎ Ol Oe Κα Pe rn Ἦν 


ΗΟ st: 


is very commonly retained here. ‘I hope to be honoured by 
you abundantly” But the object of the apostle’s hope was 
neither to be glorified by them, nor among them. Besides, 
the following clause (‘according to our rule’) does not agree 
with this interpretation. The word, therefore, is to be taken 
in its more literal sense—‘ He hoped to be enlarged abundant- 
ly (εἰς περισσείαν) according to his rule.” That is, he hoped to 
preach the gospel far beyond Corinth, agreeably to the line 
of action marked out for him. The ἐν ὑμῖν may then be ren- | 
11 


ss ΡΥ Ἀρν ν»υ 


248 11. CORINTHIANS 10, 16-18. 


dered, vobis adjuvantibus. They would aid Paul in his future — 


labours. The same idea is brought out by rendering the 
clause thus, ‘To become great among you as to that which is 
beyond.’ a 


16. To preach the gospel in the (regions) beyond 
you, (and) not to boast im another man’s line of things 
made ready to our hand. 


This infinitive (to preach) is either exegetical, ‘We hope 
to be enlarged, that is, we hope to preach beyond you;’ or it 
is the infinitive of the object, ‘We hope to become great 
among you, in order to preach, &c.? The choice between 
these explanations depends on the interpretation of the pre- 
ceding verse. Zo preach the gospel in the regions beyond 
you; «is ὑπερέκεινα (an adverb, beyond), parts beyond, and 
with ὑμῶν, parts beyond you. Eis is not here for ἐν, but means 
unto, as expressing the extent to which. ot to boast in an- 
other man’s line; ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι, within another’s line, 
That is, within the field of Jabour occupied by another man. 
Made ready to our hand. This is not a literal translation of 
ἐις τὰ ἕτοιμα, These words belong to καυχήσασϑαι, ‘Not to 
boast in reference to things prepared,’ The sense is plain; 
would not appropriate to himself the fruits of other men’s 
abours. 


17. 18. But he that glorieth, let him glory in the 
Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is ap- 
proved, but whom the Lord commendeth. 


‘To glory in the Lord,’ is either to regard God as the 
ground of confidence and source of all good, and to ascribe 
every thing we have, are, and hope to his grace; or, it is to 
exult in his approbation. Instead of comforting ourselves 
with our own high estimate of our attainments and efficiency, 
or allowing ourselves to be inflated by the applause of men, 
we should be satisfied with nothing short of the divine appro- 
bation. The connection is here in favour of the latter view. 
‘He that glories should glory in the Lord, i. e. he that. re- 
joices should rejoice in the approbation of God, (not in his 
own good opinion of himself, nor in the praises of others,) for 
not he who commendeth himself is approved, i. e. is really 


ἱ 
' 
: 
; 
F 
3 
: 


— ὖὕγζυς soe 


II. CORINTHIANS 11. 249 


worthy of approbation, but he whom the Lord commendeth.’ 
Paul did not commend himself; his claims were not founded 
on the suggestions of self-conceit ; neither did he rely on the 
commendation of others, his eye was fixed on God. If he 
could secure his favour, it was to him a small matter to be 
judged by man’s judgment. 1 Cor. 4, 3. 


is 
re 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 


The apostle apologizes for the self-commendation which was forced upon 
him, vs. 1-15. He contrasts himself and his labours with the assump- 
tions of the false teachers, vs. 15-33. 


Reasons for his self-commendation, vs. 1-15. 


Hx had just condemned all self-commendation, yet he was 
forced to do what had the appearance of self-laudation. The 
Corinthians were in danger of being turned away from Christ 
by having their confidence in Paul undermined by the mis- 
representations of his enemies. It was therefore necessary 
for him to present the grounds which he had for claiming au- 
thority over them, and for asserting his superiority over his 
opponents. Yet so repugnant was this task to his feelings, 
that he not only humbly apologizes for thus speaking of him- 
self, but he finds it difficult to do what he felt must be done, 
He over and over begins what he calls his boasting, and im- 
mediately turns aside to something else. He begs them to 
bear with him while he proceeds to praise himself, vy, 1, for 
his doing so sprang from the purest motive, love for them and 
anxiety for their welfare, vs. 2.3. An anxiety preted by 
the readiness with which they bore with those who preached 
another gospel, v. 4. He thus spoke because he was on a par 
with the chief apostles, and not behind those who among 
them claimed to be his superiors, vy. 5. They might have 
higher pretensions as orators, but in knowledge and in every 
thing that really pertained to the apostolic office he was 
abundantly manifest among them, v. 6. His refusal to avail 
himself of his right to be supported by those to whom he 
preached was no offence to them, and no renunciation of his 


250 II. CORINTHIANS 11,.1.2. 


apostleship, vs. 7-9. He was determined to refuse any pecu- 
niary aid from the Christians in Achaia, not because he did 


not love them, but because he wished to cut off all occasion 


to question his sincerity from those who sought such occasion, 
and because he desired to put the false teachers to the same 
test of disinterestedness, vs. 10-12. These teachers claimed 
to be apostles, though they had no more right to the office, 
than Satan had to be regarded as an angel of light, vs. 13-15 


1. Would to God ye could bear with me a little in 
(my) folly: and indeed bear with me. 


The self-commendation of the false teachers was the fruit 
of conceit and vanity ; with the apostle it was self-vindication. 
Although so different in character and design, they had one 
element in common. Both included self-laudation. Both, 
therefore, are designated by the same word, boasting; and 
both, therefore, he calls ἀφροσύνῃ, a want of sense. World to 
God, in the Greek simply, ὄφελον, oh that, would. In fact, 
however, every such exclamation is, in the pious mind, a 
prayer; and, therefore, the rendering, ‘I would to God, is 
neither irreverent nor inaccurate. Oh that ye could bear with 
me, (ἀνείχεσϑε, Hellenistic form, instead of ἠνείχεσϑε.) The 
pronoun pod properly belongs to the verb, and not to the fol- 
lowing μικρόν τι, as if the sense were, a little of my folly. The 
meaning is, ‘Bear with me (μικρόν τι ἀφροσύνης), as to a little 
of folly? This reading is, on the authority of the majori- 
ty of MSS., adopted by the later editors. Knapp and others 
read, μικρὸν τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ, a little as to folly ; which amounts to 
the same thing. ‘And indced bear with me. So Calvin, Beza, 
and many others, who take ἀνέχεσϑε as the imperative. This 
clause is then a repetition of the first, only more vehemently 
expressed, The former is a wish, the latter a supplication or 
demand. But the context does not require this vehemence. 
A more appropriate sense is afforded by taking the word in 
the indicative, ‘But indeed ye do bear with me;’ i, 6. the 
request is not necessary, 1 know you are disposed to suffer 
me to speak as I sce fit. 


2. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy : 


for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may. 


present (you as) a chaste virgin to Christ. 


—_— ae ἃ 


11. CORINTHIANS 11, 2. 251 


This is the reason either why they should bear with him, 
or why he was assured that they would do so, That is, the 
connection is either with the first and principal clause of ν. 1, 
or with the latter clause. It makes but little difference. The 
sense is better if the connection is with the first clause, ‘ Bear 
with my folly—for I am jealous over you.’ ZAG γὰρ ὑμᾶς. 
The word ζηλόω may mean, I ardently love, or more specifi- 
cally, Iam jealous. The latter, as the figure of marriage is 
used, is probably the sense in which the apostle uses the word. 

With godly jealousy ; ζῆλος ϑεοῦ may mean a zeal of which 
God is the object, as in Rom. 10,2; comp. John 2,17. In 
that case Paul intends to say that the feeling which he had 
for the Corinthians was a pious feeling. It was no selfish or 
mercenary interest, but such as arose from his desire to pro- 
mote the honour of God, Or, the meaning is, a zeal of which 
God is the author; or, a zeal which God approves; or, the 
zeal which God has. As the people of God are so often rep- 
resented in the Bible as standing to God in a relation analo- 
gous to that of a wife to a husband, so God is represented as 
eing jealous, i. e. moved to deep displeasure when they trans- 
fer their love to another object. Is. 54,5. 62, 5. Ez. 16. 
Hos. 2. In this view, the apostle means to say, that he shares 
in the feeling which God. is represented as entertainin 
towards his church. The translation given in the English 
yersion includes all the meanings above mentioned; for a 
godly jealousy (or zeal) is a pious zeal, it is a zeal of which 
od is both the object and the author, and it is such a zeal as 
he has. Jor 7 have espoused you to one husband. It was 
natural for the apostle to feel this jealousy over them, for he 
stood in a most intimate relation to them. Their union with 
Christ was his work. 1 Cor. 4,15. 9,1. He may compare 
himself in this verse to a father who gives his daughter to 
the bridegroom. To this it is objected that Paul became the 
father of the Corinthians by their conversion; whereas the 
relation here referred to subsisted before their conversion or 
espousal to Christ. It is commonly assumed that the allusion 
is to the office of “the friend of the bridegroom,” John 38, 29, 
(παρανύμφιος.) whose business it was to select the bride, to be 
responsible for her conduct, and to present her to the bride- 
groom. In this sense Moses was called παρανύμφιος by the 
Rabbis, as it was through him the people entered into cove- 
nant with God. In either way the sense is the same. Paul’s 
relation was so intimate with the Corinthians as the author of — 


252 II. CORINTHIANS 1, 3. 


their espousals to Christ, that he could not fail to feel the 
deepest interest in their fidelity. J have espoused you. The 
verb ἁρμόζω in the active voice is used of the father who be- 
troths his daughter; in the passive of the bride who is be- 
trothed; in the middle voice it is generally used of the man 
who pledges himself toa woman. The middle form, however, 
is sometimes used, as in this verse, (ἡρμοσάμην,) in the active 
sense. Zo one husbund. The marriage relation from its na- 
ture is exclusive. It can be sustained only to one man. So 
the relation of the church, or of the believer, to Christ is in 
like manner exclusive. We can have but one God and Sa- 
viour. Love to him of necessity excludes all love of the same 
kind to every other being. Hence the apostle says he had 
espoused (betrothed) them to ome man. This was done in 
order, in due time, to present them as a chaste virgin unto 
Christ. As in Eph. 5, 27, this presentation of the church to 
Christ as his bride, is said to take place at his second coming, 
this passage is commonly understood to refer to that event. 
Paul’s desire was that the Corinthians should remain faithful 
to their vows, so as to be presented to Christ a glorious 
church, without spot or wrinkle, on that great day. He 
dreaded lest they should, in that day, be rejected and. con- 
temned as a woman unfaithful to her vows. 


3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent 
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds 
should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in 
Christ. 


The apostle adheres to his figure. Though they were be- 
trothed to Christ, he feared that their affections might be se- 
duced from him and fixed on some other object. Men are 
not jealous until their apprehensions are excited. They must 
have some reason, either real or imaginary, for suspecting the 
fidelity of those they love. The ground of the apostle’s jeal- 
ousy was his fear. He feared (μήπως) lest peradventure. They 
had not yet turned aside, but there was great danger that they 
might yield to the seductions to which they were exposed, 
There was one standing example and warning both of the in- 
constancy of the human heart, and of the fearful consequences 
of forsaking God, Eve was created holy, she stood in paradise 
in the perfection of her nature, with every conceivable motive 


7 ee ee ν Ψ  ν ἂν 


ee Ὁ ΡΨ 


II. CORINTHIANS 11, 4. 253 


to secure her fidelity. Yet by the subtilty of Satan she fell. 

What reason then have we to fear who are exposed to the 

machinations of the same great seducer. As the serpent be- 

guiled Eve ; i. 6. Satan in the form of a serpent. Zhe serpent, 

i, e, the well-known serpent of which Moses speaks. The 

New Testament writers thus assume, and thereby sanction, 

the historical verity of the Old Testament record. The ac- 
count of the temptation as recorded in Genesis is regarded by 
the inspired writers of the New Testament not as a myth, or 
as an allegory, but as a true history. Comp. 1 Tim, 2, 14. 

Rev. 12, 9. 15. Beguiled, ἐξηπάτησεν, thoroughly deceived. 

All seduction is by means of deception. Sin is in its nature 
deceit. The imagination is filled with false images, and the 
foolish heart is darkened. Eve was thus deceived by the sub- 
tilty of Satan. She was made to disbelieve what was true, and 
to believe what was false. Man’s belief, in a very large sphere, 
is determined by his feelings. The heart controls the under- 
standing. The good believe the true; the evil believe the 
untrue. This is the reason why men are accountable for their 
faith, and why the wicked are led captive by Satan into all 
manner of error, Eve was deceived by exciting unholy feel- 
ings in her heart. Paul’s apprehension was lest the Corinthi- 
ans, surrounded by false teachers, the ministers of Satan, 
should in like manner be beguiled. What he feared was that 
their minds should be corrupted. It was a moral perversion, 
or corruption, that he apprehended, Your minds, τὰ νοήματα 
ὑμῶν. The word νόημα means first thought ; then that which 
thinks, the understanding; and then, the affections or dispo- 
sitions, Phil. 4, 7. Our translation, “ your minds,” as includ- 
ing the idea both of thought and feeling, is the most appro- 
priate rendering. Corrupted from, is a pregnant expression, 
meaning corrupted so as to be turned from. Zhe simplicity 
that is in Christ ; ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν, ‘ from 
singleness of mind towards Christ. That is, the undivided 
affection and devotion to Christ which is due from a bride to 
her spouse, The allusion to the marriage relation is kept up. 
Paul had compared the Corinthians to a virgin espoused to 
one man, and he feared lest their affections might be seduced 
from Christ and transferred to another. 


4. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, 
whom we have not preached, or (if) ye receive another 


254 II. CORINTHIANS 11, 4. 


spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, - 
which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with 


(him). 


There are two entirely different views of the meaning of 
this verse, depending on the view taken of the connection. — 
If the association of ideas is with the preceding verse, so that 
this passage assigns the reason of the fear there expressed, 
the meaning is, ‘I am afraid concerning you, for if a false 
teacher comes and preaches another gospel, you readily bear 
with him,” It is a reproof of their credulity and easiness of 
persuasion to forsake the truth, analogous to that administered 
to the Galatians. Gal. 4, 6-8. 5,8. But if this verse is con- 
nected with the main subject as presented in vy. 1, then the 
sense is, ‘ Bear with me, for if a false teacher preaches another 
gospel you bear with him.’ This is to be preferred, not only 
because the sense is better as more consistent with the con- 
text, but also because ἀνέχομαι means to endure, to put up with, 
and supposes that the thing endured is in itself repulsive. In 
this sense the word is used twice in ν. 1. and should be so 
taken here. ‘If aman preaches a new Christ ye would put 
up with his selflaudation, therefore, you should put up with 
mine,” ‘The proper force of the verb (ἀνέχομαι) is also against 
the interpretation given by Chrysostom and followed by many 
later commentators. ‘If any one really preached another 
gospel (i. 6. communicated to you another method of salva- 
tion), you would do well to bear with him and receive him 

ladly.” But all this is foreign to the context. The thing to 
e endured, was something hard to put up with. It was what 
the apostle calls folly. 

‘or if he that cometh, ὃ ἐρχόμενος, the comer, any one who 
happens to come, ‘The reference is not to any one well known 
false teacher, but to a whole class. Preaches another Jesus ; | 
not another Saviour, but another person than the son of Mary 
whom we preached. That is, if he sets forth some other in- | 
dividual as the true deliverer from sin. Or if ye receive an- 
other spirit, which ye have not received. The gitt of the Holy 
Ghost was secured by the work of Christ. He redeemed us 
from the curse of the law—in order that we might receive the 
promise of the Spirit. Gal. 3,13.14. The indwelling of the 
Spirit, therefore, as manifested by his sanctifying and miracu- 
lous power, was the great evidence of the truth of the gospel. 
Hence the apostle, to convince the Galatians of the folly of 


edi Aue 


II. CORINTHIANS 11, 5. 255 


= to Judaism, says, “This only would I learn of you. 
seived ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the 
hearing of faith?” Gal. 3,2; and in Heb. 2,4, he says, God 
bore witness to the gospel by the gifts of the Holy Ghost. 
The apostle here supposes the impossible case that a like con- 
firmation had attended the preaching of the false teachers. 
‘If? he says, ‘they preach another (ἄλλος) Jesus, and in proof 
that he is truly a Saviour, ye receive a different (ἕτερος) spirit, 
i.e. a spirit whose manifestations were of a different kind 
from those of the Spirit who attests my preaching, &e. Or 
another (ἕτερος, ἃ different) gospel, which ye have not accepted. 
In the former clause the verb is ἐλάβετε bre received), in the 
latter ἐδέξασϑε (ye accepted), because, as Bengel says, Non 
concurrit voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in recipi- 
endo evangelio. That is, man is passive in receiving the 
spirit, and active in accepting the gospel. Ye might well 
bear with him. The word is ἀνείχεσϑε, in the imperfect. The 
tense which the context would seem to demand is the present, 
ἀνέχεσϑε, ἃ reading which Lachmann and Riickert, on the au- 
thority of the MS. B, have introduced into the text. The 
other leading verbs of the verse are in the present, ‘If one 
preaches another Jesus, and ye receive another Spirit, and 
accept another gospel, (in that case,) ye do bear with him. 
Instead, however, of saying, ‘ye do bear with him,’ the apostle 
is supposed purposely to soften the expression by saying, ‘ ye 
might well bear with him;’ the particle ἀν being, as often, 
understood, In this way he avoids the direct charge of tol- 
erating the conceited boasting of the false teachers. Others, 
as Meyer and Winer, assume an irregularity, or change of 
construction. 


5. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very 
chiefest apostles. 


The sense here again depends on the connection. If the 
ip refers to y. 4, the reference must be (as so often occurs in 
Paul's writings) to a thought omitted. ‘Ye are wrong in- 
thus bearing with the false teachers, for I am equal to the 
chief apostles? This, however, is not in harmony with the 
context. Paul’s design is not so much to reprove the Corin- 
thians for tolerating the folly of the false teachers, as to induce _ 
them to bear with his. He felt it to be necessary to vindicate — 
himself, and he therefore prays them to bear with him a little 


256 Il. CORINTHIANS 11, 6. 


in his folly. To this point every thing here refers. They 
should thus bear with him, 1. Because he was jealous over 
them with a godly jealousy. 2. Because they would bear 
with any who really preached another gospel, were that possi- 
ble. 3. Because he was on a par with the chief apostles, 
The connection, therefore, is not with v. 4, but with the main 
subject as presented in vy. 1. This also determines the ques- 
tion, Who are meant by the chiefest apostles? If the con- 
nection is with v. 4, then the expression is to be understood 
ironically in reference to the false teachers. ‘Ye do wrong 
to tolerate them, for 1 am in no respect behind those superla- 
tive apostles.’ So Beza, Billroth, Olshausen, Meyer, and the 
majority of the moderns. The reason given for this is, that 
there is no controversy with the true apostles in this connec- 
tion, and therefore nothing to call for such an assertion of his 
equality with them as we find in Gal. 2, 6-11. There is, how- 
ever, no force in this reason if the connection is with v. 1. 
‘Bear with me in my boasting, for I am not behind the chief- 
est apostles.’ In this view the reference to the true apostles 
is pertinent and natural. Paul says, μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι, that as 
to nothing, in no one respect, had he fallen short, or was he 
left behind by the chiefest apostles; neither in gifts, nor in 
labours, nor in success had any one of them been more highly 
favoured, nor more clearly authenticated as the messenger of 
Christ. He was therefore fully entitled to all the deference 
and obedience which were due to the chiefest apostles. The 
expression τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων, is not in itself bitter or 
ironical, This is a force which must be given by the connec- 
tion ; it does not lie in the words themselves. It is not equi- 
valent to the ψευδαπόστολοι of v. 13, and therefore there is no 
more reason why the true apostles should not be called οἱ 
ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι than οἱ δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι in Gal. 2,6. ‘The 
argument, therefore, which the Reformers derived from this 

assage oe the primacy of Peter is perfectly legitimate. 

aul was Peter’s equal in every respect, and so far from being 
under his authority, he not only refused to follow his example 
but reproved him to his face. Gal. 2, 11. 


6. But though (I be) rude in speech, yet not in 
knowledge ; but we have been thoroughly made mani- 
fest among you in all things. 


In Corinth, where Grecian culture was at its height, it had 


ee ee ee Pe ee 


a 


—— ee dl seen 


ee eS eS 
' 9 
. 


II. CORINTHIANS 11, 6. 257 


been urged as an objection to Paul that he did not speak with 
the wisdom of words. 1 Cor. 1,17. He was no rhetorician, 
and did not appear in the character of an orator. This he 
here, as in the former epistle, concedes. If that were an ob- 
jection, he had no answer to make other than that his depend- 
ence was on the demonstration of the Spirit, and not the per- 
suasive words of man’s wisdom. 1 Cor, 2, 4, Ei δὲ καί is 
concessive, ‘ But if, as is true, 1 am rude in speech ;’ ἰδιώτης 
τῷ λόγῳ, untrained, or unskilful in speech. The word ἰδιώτης 
means a private person as opposed to those in official station; 
a commoner as opposed to a patrician; an uneducated, or 
unskilful man, as opposed to those who were specially trained 
for any service or work, corporeal or mental, What Paul 
concedes is not the want of eloquence, of which his writings 
afford abundant evidence, but of the special training of a 
Grecian. He spoke Greek asa Jew. It is not improbable 
that some of his opponents in Corinth, although themselves 
of Hebrew origin, prided themselves on their skill in the use 
of the Greek language, and made the apostle’s deficiency in 
that respect a ground of disparagement. But not in knowl- 
edge. He was no ἰδιώτης τῇ γνώσει. Having been taught the 
gospel by immediate revelation from Christ, Gal. 2, 12, he had 
complete possession of that system of truth which it was the 
object of the apostleship to communicate to men. He there- 
fore everywhere asserts his competency as a teacher instructed 
of God and entitled to full credence and implicit confidence, 
1 Cor, 2, 6-11. Eph, 3,4.5. But we have been thoroughly 
made manifest among you in all things. In this clause, 
after φανερωϑέντες, ἐσμέν is to be supplied; ἐν παντί, rendered 
thoroughly, is in every point, or in every respect ; ἐν πᾶσιν, in 
all things, so that in every point in all departments he was 
manifest, i. e. clearly known; «is ὑμᾶς, as it concerns you, (not 
among you, which would require ἐν ὑμῖν), So far from being 
deficient in knowledge, he stood clearly revealed before them 
as thoroughly furnished in every respect and in all things as 
an apostle of Jesus Christ. In nothing did he fall behind the 
very chief of the apostles. Luther’s translation of this clause 
1s, Doch ich bin bei euch allenthalben wohl bekannt. It is in 
this view a correction of what goes before. ‘I am not de- 
ficient in seinen oe Yet I am in all respects perfectly 
known by you; there is no need to tell you what I am. 
Beza and Olshausen give the same explanation. This, how- 
ever, does not agree with what follows in the next verse, 


258 II. CORINTHIANS 11, 7. 


Others again, understand the apostle as here asserting his’ 
well established character for purity of purpose and conduct. 
‘My whole conduct is perfectly open and straightforward for 
you to see” There is, however, no impeachment of his con- 
duct referred to in the context, and therefore no call for this 
general assertion of integrity. It is better to restrict the pas- 
sage to the point immediately in hand. ‘He was not behind 
the chief apostles; but although rude in speech, he was not 
deficient in knowledge, and was manifest before them in all 
things, 1. e. in all things pertaining to the apostolic office.’ 
Instead of φανερωϑέντες the MSS. B, F, G, 17, read φανερώσαν- 
τες, Which Lachmann, Riickert and Tischendorf adopt. This 
alters the whole sense. The meaning most naturally then is, 
‘Iam not deficient in knowledge, but have manifested it in 
every point in all things” The majority of critical editors re- 
tain the common text, which gives a sense equally well suited 
to the connection. | 


7. Have I committed an offence in abasing myself 
that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to 
you the gospel of God freely ? 


Our version omits the particle 7 (or), which is necessary 
to indicate the connection. Paul was clearly manifested as 
an apostle. ‘Or, he asks, ‘is it an objection to my apostle- 
ship that I have not availed myself of the right of an apostle 
to be supported by those to whom I preach? Have I sinned 
in this respect?? Comp. 1 Cor. 9, 4-15. Have I committed 
an offence in abasing myself ; ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν, humbling my- 
self by renouncing a privilege which was my due, Comp. Phil. 
4,12. It was an act of self-humiliation that Paul, though en- 
titled to be supported by the people, sustained himself in 
great measure by the labour of his own hands, I humbled 
myself, he says, that ye might be exalted, that is, for your 
good. It was to promote their spiritual interests that he 
wrought at the trade of a tent-maker. Because I preached 
unto you the gospel of God freely? ‘This clause, beginning 
with ὅτι, is exegetical of the preceding. ‘ Have I sinned hum- 
bling myself, i. e. have I sinned because I preached freely ?? 
(δωρεάν, gratuitously). It is clearly intimated in 1 Cor. 9, that 
Paul’s refusing to be supported by the Corinthians was repre- 
sented by his enemies as arising from the consciousness of the 


II. CORINTHIANS 1], 8. 9. 259 


invalidity of his claim to the apostleship. As they had no 
other objection to him, he asks whether they were disposed 
to urge that. 


8. I robbed other churches, taking wages (of them), 
to do you service. 


To rob is to take with violence what does not belong to 
us. It is therefore only in a figurative sense the word is here 
used. What Paul received from other (i. e. the Macedonian) 
churches, he was fully entitled to, and it was freely given. 
The only point of comparison or analogy was that he took 
from them what the Corinthians ought to have contributed. 
Taking wages (λαβὼν ὀψώνιον), or a stipend. Zo do you ser- 
vice, πρὸς τὴν ὑμῶν διακονίαν, for your ministry. This expresses 
the object of his receiving assistance from others. It was 
that he might minister gratuitously to them. 


9. And when I was present with you, and wanted, 
I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lack- 
ing to me the brethren which came from Macedonia 
supplied: and in all (things) I have kept myself from 
being burdensome unto you, and (so) will I keep 
(myself). 


It is plain from this verse that when Paul went to Corinth, 
he took with him a supply of money derived from other 
churches, which he supplemented by the proceeds of his own 
labour; and when his stock was a the deficiency was 
supplied by the brethren from Macedonia. And when I was 
present (παρὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς), ‘ being present with you;? (καὶ ὕστε- 
ρηϑείς), ‘and being reduced to want ;’ (od κατενάρκησα οὐδενός), 
I was chargeable to no man, literally, ‘I pressed as a dead 
weight upon no one,’ i. e. I was burdensome to no one. The 
verb here used is derived from νάρκη, torpor, hence ναρκάω, to 
be torpid. The compound καταναρκάω, to be torpid against 
any one, (to press heavily upon him,) is found only here and 
in 12,13.14. In confirmation of the assertion that he had 
been chargeable to no man he adds, for that which was lack- 
ing to me (τὸ ὑστέρημά pov, my deficiency,) the brethren which 


260 Il. CORINTHIANS 11, 9. 


came from Macedonia (rather, ‘the brethren having come 
from Macedonia,’) supplied ; προσανεπλήρωσαν, a double com- 
pound verb, to supply in addition. The contribution of the 
churches were added to what Paul earned by his labour, or, 
to his diminished stock which he had brought with him to 
Corinth. The point on which he here dwells is not that he 
laboured for his own support, but that he received assistance 
from other churches, while he refused to receive any thing 
from the Corinthians. His conduct in reference to receiving 
aid varied with circumstances. From some churches he re- 
ceived it without hesitation; from others he would not receive 
it at all. He said to the Ephesians, “I coveted no man’s sil- 
ver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these 
hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that 
were with me,” Acts 20, 34. 35. So also to the Thessalonians 
he said, “* Ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for 
labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable 
unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God,” 
1 Thess, 2,9. 2 Thess. 3,8. Among the Corinthians he adopt- 
ed the same course. Acts 18,3. 1 Cor. 9,15-18. Whereas 
from the Philippians he received repeated contributions, not 
only while labourmg among them, but as he reminds them, 
“Even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my neces- 
sity,” Phil. 4,16; and when a prisoner in Rome they sent by 
the hands of Epaphroditus an abundant supply, so that he 
said, “1 have all, and abound,” Phil. 4,18. It was therefore 
from no unwillingness to receive what he knew to be due by 
the ordinance of Christ, (viz., an adequate support.) 1 Cor, 9, 
14, but simply, as he says, to cut off occasion from those who 
sought occasion. He was unwilling that his enemies should 
have the opportunity of imputing to him any mercenary mo- 
tive in preaching the gospel. This was een, necessary in 
Corinth, and therefore the apostle says, ‘In all things (ἐν παντί, 
in every thing, not only in pecuniary matters, but in every 
thing else,) I have kept myself from being burdensome unto 
you, and will keep myself” He would receive no obligation 
at their hands. He was determined to assume towards them 
a position of entire ry torsos This was doubtless very 
painful to the faithful in Corinth. They could not but regard 
it as a proof either of the want of love or of the want of con- 
fidence on his part. Still his determination as to this point 
was settled, and he therefore adds solemnly in the next 
verse : 


—_—_r 


ESSE Or μι). 


πεν a ae ee 


11. CORINTHIANS 11, 10-12. 261 


10. As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall 
stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. 


Calvin, Beza, and others, understand this as an oath, or 
asseveration. Our translators adopted the same view, and 
therefore supply the word as, which is not in the Greek. 
This interpretation is not required by the text or context. 
The words are simply, ‘The truth (ἀλήϑεια, the veracity, 
truthfulness) of Christ, (i. e. the veracity which pertains to 
Christ, and which Christ produces,) is in me.? That is, in vir- 
tue of the veracity which Christ has produced in me, I declare, 
that (ὅτι, which our translators omit,) 20 man shall stop me of 
this boasting. Literally, ‘This boasting shall not be stopped 
as tome,’ The word is φραγήσεται, which in the New Testa- 
ment is only used in reference to the mouth. Rom. 3, 19, 
Heb. 11, 33. ‘This boasting as to me shall not have its 
mouth stopped.’ Jn all the regions of Achaia ; not in Cor- 
inth only, but in all that part of Greece not included in Mace- 
donia. From the Macedonians he was willing to receive aid ; 
from the Christians of Achaia he would not. The reason for 
this distinction he states negatively and affirmatively in the 
following verses. 


11. 12. Wherefore? because I love you not? God 
knoweth. But what I do, that I will do, that I may 
cut off occasion from them which desire occasion ; that 
wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 


That his purpose not to receive aid from the Corinthians 
did not, as it might seem, arise from want of love to them he 
solemnly declares. The expression “God knows” in the lips 
of the apostle, it need not be remarked, implies no irreverence. 
It is a pious recognition of the omniscience of God, the search- 
er of ail hearts, to whom he appeals as the witness of the 
strength of his affection for his people. The true reason for 
his determination to continue to do as he had already done, 
was, as he says, Zhat I may cut off occasion from them that 
desire occasion. 'That is, that I may avoid giving those who 
desire to impeach my motives any pretence for the charge 
that I preach the yospel for the sake of gain. It is plain from 
1 Cor. 9, 15-18, that this was his motive in refusing to receive 


262 II. CORINTHIANS 11, 11. 12. 


aid from the Corinthians; and that his special καύχημα, ΟἹ 
ground of boasting, was that he preached the gospel gratuit. 
tously. He said he would rather die than that any man should 
take from him that ground of confidence. This of course im 

lies that the purity of his motives had been assailed, and that 

is object in making “the gospel of Christ without charge” 
was to stop the mouths of his accusers. That wherein they 
glory. This clause (with ἵνα) depends on the immediately 


preceding one. He desired to cut off occasion from those 


seeking it, in order that, if they chose to boast, they may be 
Sound even as we. That is, he wished to force them to be as 
disinterested as he was. According to this interpretation, ἐν 
ᾧ, in the phrase ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται, does not refer to any special 
ground of boasting, but to the general disposition. ‘ Inas- 
much as they are so fond of boasting and of setting themselves 
up as apostles, they may be forced to give over making gain 
of the gospel,’ ν᾿ 

Calvin, Grotius, Riickert, and others, assume that the false 
teachers in Corinth preached gratuitously, and that the reason 
why the apostle did the same, was that he might not give 
them occasion to glory over him. In this view the second 
clause with iva is co-ordinate with the first, and ἐν ᾧ in the last 
clause refers to their special ground of boasting, and the sense 
of the whole is, ‘I will do as I have done in order that these 
false teachers shall have no occasion to exalt themselves over 
me; that is, in order that they be found, when they boast of 
their disinterestedness, to be no better thanI am,’ But to 
this it may be objected, 1. That it is eyident from v, 20 of 
this chapter, and from the whole character of these false 
teachers as depicted by the apostle, that so far from preach- 
ing gratuitously, they robbed the churches. 2. It is clear 
from what is said in the former epistle that Paul’s object was 
not to prevent his opponents setting themselves forth as his 
superiors, but to make undeniably manifest the purity of his 
own motives in preaching the gospel. Others again, admit- 
ting that the false teachers received money from the Corinthi- 
ans, understand the apostle to say, that he refused aid ἴῃ 
order that he might take away from the false teachers all 
occasion for boasting that they were as he was. This, how- 
ever, was not their boast. They did not claim to be what 
the apostle was, for they denounced him as an impostor, The 
first interpretation suits both the words and the context. 


‘ 
; 


ey EE Ri? ES ee yt 


—=- i=) = 
- ν 


II. CORINTHIANS 11, 13. 263 


13. For such (are) false apostles, deceitful workers, 
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 


The reason assigned in this verse for the determination 
expressed in the preceding, to cut off ovcasion from those who 
sought to degrade the apostle, is, the unworthy character of 
his opponents. ‘They were so unprincipled and unscrupulous 
that Paul was determined they should have no advantage over 
him. The words of τοιοῦτοι ψευδαπόστολοι may be rendered 
either, Such false apostles are, &c., or, Such are false apostles, 
The Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and the majority of the earlier 
commentators, give the former interpretation; most of the 
later writers the latter. The latter is to be preferred because 
the emphasis is on the word false apostles ; and because such 
false apostles would imply that there were other false apostles 
who were not deceitful workers. False apostles are those 
who falsely claimed to be apostles, as false Christs, Matt. 24, 
24, and false prophets, Matt. 11,15, are those who falsely 
claimed to be Christ or prophets. An apostle was commis- 
sioned by Christ, endowed with the gifts of plenary inspiration 
and knowledge, and invested with supernatural powers. 
Those in that age, and those who now claim to be apostles 
without this commission, these gifts, and these signs of the 
apostleship, are false apostles. ey claim to be what they 
are not, and usurp an authority which does not belong to 
them. The fundamental idea of Romanism is the perpetuity 
of the apostolic office. Bishops are assumed to be apostles, 
and therefore claim infallibility in teaching, and supreme au- 
thority in ruling. If we admit them to be apostles, we must 
admit the validity of their claims to unquestioning faith and 
obedience. Deceitful workers, i. e. workers who use deceit. 
They were workers in so far as they were preachers or teach- 
ers; but they were not honest; they availed themselves of 
every means to deceive and pervert the people. To the same 
persons the apostle refers in Phil. 3, 2, “as evil workers.” 
Transforming themselves into, i. e. assuming the character of, 
the apostles of Christ. Though their real object was not to 
advance the kingdom and glory of Christ, and although they 
were never commissioned for that work, they gave themselves 
out as Christ’s messengers and servants, and even claimed to 
have a more intimate relation to him, and to be more devoted 
to his service than Paul himself, 

12 


264 II. CORINTHIANS 11, 14, 15. 


14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is trans- ! 
formed into an angel of light. at 


It is not wonderful that false apostles should put them- 
selves forward under the guise of apostles of Christ, and a 
pear and be received as such, for Satan himself, the most evil 
of all beings, assumes the form of the highest and purest of 
created intelligences. An angel of light, i. e. a bright, pure, 
happy angel. Light is always the symbol of excellence and 
blessedness, hence the expressions kingdom of light, children 
of light, &e. And hence God is said to dwell in light, and 
the saints are said to have their inheritance in light. It is by 
no means clear that the apostle refers either to the history of 
the fall or to Satan’s appearing with the sons of God as men- 
tioned in Job 1,6. It is more probable that the statement 
rests on the general doctrine of the Bible concerning the 
great adversary. He is everywhere represented as the de- 
ceiver, assuming false guises, and making false represen- 
tations. 


15. Therefore (it is) no great thing if his ministers 
also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness ; 
whose end shall be according to their works. 


If Satan can be thus changed, it is no great thing if his 
ministers undergo a similar transformation. If a bad angel 
can assume the appearance of a good angel, a bad man may 
put on the semblance of a good man. The false teachers are 
called ministers of Satan, that is, they are his servants, 1. In 
so far as they are instigated and controlled in their labours by 
him. 2. And in so far that their labours tend to advance his 
kingdom, i. e. error and evil. All wicked men and all teach- 
ers of false doctrine are, in this sense the servants of Satan. 
He is their master. The false teachers assumed to be minis- 
ters of righteousness. This may mean, righteous, upright 
ministers; or, promoters of righteousness in the sense of gen- 
eral excellence. They pretended to be the promoters of all 
that is good. Or, righteousness may be taken in its peculiar 
New Testament and Pauline sense, as in 3, 9, where the 
the phrase “ ministry of righteousness” occurs; see also Eph. 
6,15. In these and many other places the word righteous- 
ness refers to “the righteousness of God,” or, as it is also 


II. CORINTHIANS 11, 16. 265 


called “the righteousness of faith.’ These false teachers 
professed to be the preachers of that righteousness which is 
of God and which avails to the justification of sinners in his 
sight. Satan does not come to us as Satan; neither does six 
present itself as sin, but in the guise of virtue; and the teach- 
ers of error set themselves forth as the special advocates of 
truth. Whose end shall be according to their works. Satan 
is none the less Satan when he appears as an angel cf light, 
and evil is evil when called by the name of good. God’s 
judgments are according to the truth. He does not pass 
sentence on the (σχῆμα) the external fashion which we assume, 
but on our real character; not on the mask, but on the man. 
The end, i. 6. the recompense of every man, shall be not ac- 
cording to his professions, not according to his own convic- 
tions or judgment of his character or conduct, not according 
to appearances or the estimate of men, but according to his 
wor If men really promote the kingdom of Christ, they 
will be regarded and treated as his servants; if they increase 
the dominion of sin and error, they will be regarded and 
treated as the ministers of Satan. 


16. I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if 
otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast 
myself a little. 


After the foregoing outburst of feeling against the false 
teachers, the apostle resumes his purpose of self-vindication. 
He therefore says again what he had in substance said in v. 1. 
Let no man think me a fool, that is, a boaster. Self-laudation 
is folly; and self-vindication, when it involves the necessity 
of self-praise, has the appearance of folly. Therefore the 
apostle was pained and humbled by being obliged to praise 
himself. He was no boaster, and no one could rightfully so 
regard him, but if otherwise (εἰ δὲ μήγε, the negative is used 
because although the preceding clause is negative, the idea 
is, 1 would that no man should regard me as a fool, but if 
you do not think of me as I would wish, still, ὅθ.) Receive 
me, (i. 6. bear with me,) that I may boast myself a little. 
The words are κἀγώ, 7 also, i, e. I as well as others. ‘You 
allow my enemies to boast of what they do, permit me to say 
a little of what I have done and suffered.’ 


17. That which I speak, I speak (it) not after the 


266 II. CORINTHIANS 11, 17 


Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of 
boasting. me: 

That which I speak, ὃ λαλῶ, The apostle uses λαλῶ and 
not λέγω, because the reference is not to any definite words 
which he had uttered, but general—my talk, or language, 
Is not after the Lord, i. e. is not such as characterized Christ, 
or becomes his disciples. Our Lord was no boaster, and his 
Spirit does not lead any one to boast. This is very common- 
ly regarded as a denial of inspiration, or divine guidance in 
these utterances. Even Bengel says, ‘‘ Whatever Paul wrote 
without this express exception, was inspired and spoken after 
the Lord;” and Meyer says, od λαλῶ κατὰ κύριον, negirt aller- 
dings den theopneusten Charakter der Rede. This arises 
from a misconception of the nature and design of inspiration. 
The simple end of inspiration is to secure infallibility in the 
communication of truth. It is not designed to sanctify; it 
does not preclude the natural play of the intellect or of the 
feelings. When Paul called the High Priest a “ whited wall,” 
Acts 23, 3, although he apologized for it, he was as much in- 
spired as when he wrote his epistle to the Ephesians. Even 
supposing therefore that there was something of human weak- 
ness in his boasting, that would not prove that he was not 
under the inspiration of God in saying that he boasted, or in 
saying that boasting was folly. But this assumption is un- 
necessary. There was nothing wrong in his self-laudation, 
He never appears more truly humble than when these refer- 
ences to his labour and sufferings were wrung from him, filling 
him with a feeling of self-contempt. Alas! how few of the 
holiest of men does it pain and mortify to speak of their-own 
greatness or success. How often are the writings even of 
good men coals on which they sprinkle incense to their own 
pride. When Paul said that his boasting was not after the 
Lord, he said no more than when he called it folly. All that 
the expression implies is that self-praise in itself considered, is 
not the work of a Christian; it is not a work to which the 
Spirit of Christ impels the believer. But, when it is necessa- 
ry to the vindication of the truth or the honor οἵ religion, it 
becomes a duty. But as it were foolishly, (ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ, in 
folly.) That is, speaking boastfully was not religious but 
foolish. Jn this confidence of boasting, ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ὑποστάσει 
τῆς καυχήσεως. Ὕποστάσις may mean matter, or confidence. 
‘In this particular matter, or case of boasting.’ In this sense 


Il. CORINTHIANS 11, 18. 267 


it is a limitation of what precedes. He was justified in boast- 
ing in this particular matter. It is, however, more consistent 
with the common use of the word in the New Testament, that 
here, as in 9, 4, it should be taken in the sense of confidence, 
and ἐν be rendered with. ‘I speak with this confidence οἱ 
boasting,’ 


18. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will 
glory also. 


The apostle here assigns the reason of his glorying. His 
opponents so magnified themselves and their services, and so 
depreciated him and his labours, that he was forced, in order 
to maintain his influence as the advocate of a pure gospel, to 
set forth his claims to the confidence of the people. Seeing 
that (ἐπεί, since, because) many glory. From this, as well as 
from other intimations abounding in this epistle, it is evident 
that the opposition to Paul was headed not by one man, but 
by a body or class of false teachers, all of whom were Juda- 
izers. They gloried after the flesh (κατὰ tiv σάρκα). This 
may mean, ‘they gloried as to the flesh’ Then flesh means 
what is external and adventitious, such as their Hebrew de- 
scent, their circumcision, &c. See v. 22, where these false 
teachers are represented as boasting of their external advan- 
tages. Compare also Gal, 6,13 and Phil. 3,4, where the 
apostle says in reference to the same class of opponents, “ If 
any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust 
in the flesh, I more.” The sense in this case is good and ap. 
propriate, but it would require ἐν and not κατά, See 10, 17. 
11,12. 12,9, &e., ἄς. Κατὰ σάρκα more properly means ae: 
cording to the flesh, i. e. according to corrupt human nature, 
as opposed to κατὰ κύριον In the preceding verse. These men 
were influenced in their boasting by unworthy motives. JZ 
will glory also. Does Paul mean, ‘ As others glory after the 
flesh, I also will glory after the flesh’? i.e.as others give 
way to their selfish feelings, I will do the same. This is the 
view which many commentators take. They say that κατὰ 
σάρκα is necessarily implied after κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι, because the 
apostle had just said that in boasting he did not act κατὰ κύριον, 
which implies that he did act κατὰ σάρκα: and because in the 
following verse he makes himself one of ἄφρονες of whose glo- 
rying the Corinthians were so tolerant. But the sense thus 
expressed is neither true nor consistent with the character of 


268 II. CORINTHIANS 11, 19. 20. 


the apostle. It is not true that he was influenced in boasting 
by corrupt feelings; that self-conceit and the desire of ap- 
plause were in him, as in the false teachers, the motives which 
governed him in this matter. There is no necessity for sup- 
plying κατὰ σάρκα after the last clause. What Paul says 18, 
‘As many boast from unworthy motives, I also will boast? 
If they did it from bad motives, he might well do it from 
good ones. | 


19. For ye suffer fools gladly, seemg ye (your- 
selves) are wise. 


That is, ‘I will indulge in the folly of boasting, for ye are 
tolerant of fools” The Corinthians had, to a degree disgrace- 
ful to themselves, allowed the boasting Judaizing teachers to 
gain an ascendency over them, and they could not, therefore, 
with any consistency object to the selfvindication of Paul. 
Seeing ye are wise. As it is the part of the wise to bear with 
fools, so the Corinthians in their wisdom might bear with the 
apostle. Of course this is said ironically and as a reproof. 
In the same spirit and with the same purpose he had said to 
them in his former epistle, 4, 8, “We are fools, but ye are 
wise.” 


20. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, 
if a man deyour (you), if a man take (of you), if a man 
exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. 


They might well bear with Paul since they bore with the 
tyranny, the rapacity, the insolence, and the violence of the 
false teachers, The character of these troublers of the church 
was everywhere the same; see Gal. 1,7. They were lords 
over God’s heritage, 1 Pet. 5, 3, not only as they endeavoured 
to reduce the Christians under the bondage of the law, as ap- 
pears from the epistle to the Galatians, but as they exercised 
a tyrannical authority over the people. To this the apostle 
here refers when he says, Jf any man bring you into bondage 
(καταδουλοῖ), i. e. makes slaves of you. That this is not to be 
limited to subjection to the Jewish law, is evident from what 
follows, which is an amplification of the idea here expressed. 
These men were tyrants, and therefore they devoured, insult- 
ed and maltreated ‘the people. Jf any man devour (you), 
i.e, rapaciously consumes your substance, as our Lord de- 


11. CORINTHIANS 11, 21. 269 


scribes the Pharisees as devouring widows’ houses, Matt. 
23,14. Jf any take (of you); εἴ τις λαμβάνει; ὑμᾶς is to be 
supplied as after κατεσϑέει in the preceding clause. “ Jf any 
ἰὸς you,” i, 6. capture you or ensnare you, as ἃ huntsman his 
prey. Our version by supplying of you alters the sense, and 
makes this clause express less than the preceding; devouring 
is a stronger expression for rapacity than ‘taking of you. 
If any man exalt himself (ἐπαίρεται, sc. καϑ᾽ ὑμῶν), i. 6. if any 
one proudly and insolently lifts himself up against you. And 
as the climax, Jf any one smite you on the face. To smite 
the face or mouth was the highest indignity; as such it was 
offered to our Lord, Luke 22,64, and to Paul, Acts 23, 2; 
see also 1 Kings 22, 24. Matt. 5,39. Such was the treatment 
to which the Corinthians submitted from the hands of the 
false teachers; and such is ever the tendency of unscriptural 
church-authority. It assumes an absolute dependence of the 

ople on the clergy—an inherent, as well as official superiori- 
ty of the latter over the former, and therefore false teachers 
have, as a general rule, been tyrants. The gospel, and of 
course the evangelical, as opposed to the high-church system 
of doctrine, is incompatible with all undue authority, because 
it teaches the essential equality of believers and opens the 
way to grace and salvation to the people without the inter- 
vention of a priest. 


21. I speak as concerning reproach, as though we 
had been weak. Howbeit, whereisoever any is bold, 
(I speak foolishly) I am bold also. 


I speak as concerning reproach, Kara ἀτιμίαν λέγω means 
simply Z reproach. After ἀτιμίαν may be apie ἐμήν. The 
sense would then be, ‘I say to my own shame, that, &c. ;? 
λέγω being understood as referring to what follows. ‘I say 
to my shame that I was weak” The Greek is, κατὰ ἀτιμίαν 

ἐμὴν) ds ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠσϑενήσαμεν ; where ὡς ὅτι may, as Winer, 
‘ 67, 1, says, be a redundancy for simply ὅτι (5, 19. 2 Thess, 
2, 2.) 51 say that. This would be a direct assertion on the part 
of Paul that he was weak in the sense intended. It is better, 
with Meyer and others, to give ὡς its proper force, as, as if. 
His being weak was not a fact, but an opinion entertained con- 
cerning him. ‘I say that (as people think) I was weak.’ One 
class of the Corinthians regarded Paul as weak in bodily pres- 


270 II. CORINTHIANS 11, 21. 


ence and contemptible in speech, 10, 10. In reference to this 
judgment of his opponents he says, “1 acknowledge to my shame 
that, when present with you (the aorist, ἠσϑενήσαμεν, is used), 
I was weak.’ In 1 Cor. 2,3 he told the Corinthians that he 
came among them in weakness and fear and much trembling, 
There was a sense in which he admitted and professed himself 
to be weak. He had no self-confidence. He did not believe 
in his own ability to persuade or convert men. He felt the 
responsibility of his office, and he relied both for knowledge 
and success entirely on the Spirit of God. His conceited and 
arrogant opposers were strong in their own estimation; they 
contemned the mean-spirited apostle, and considered him des- 
titute of all sources of power. The weakness of which Paul 
here speaks is that which was attributed to him by his ene- 
mies. The whole preceding context is ironical, and so is this 
clause. ‘Your teachers are great men, I am nothing com- 
int tothem. They are strong, but, I say it to my shame, 

am weak. But, as opposed to this imputed weakness, I 
am equal to any of them, I speak in folly” Howbeit wherein- 
soever any is bold (ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ ἄν τις τολμᾷ), ‘But whatever they 
dare, I dare. Whatever claims they put forth, I can assert 
the same. If they boast, I can outboast them. If they are 
Hebrews, so am I, &c,? 

The foregoing interpretation of this passage, which as- 
sumes that λέγω in the first clause refers to what follows, and 
that the reproach mentioned had Paul for its object, is given 
by Storr, Flatt, Meyer, and many others. The great majority 
of commentators, however, understand λέγω as referring to 
what precedes and the Corinthians and not Paul to be the ob- 
ject of the reproach. ‘I say this to your shame.? Compare 
1 Cor. 6,5, πρὸς ἐντροπὴν ὑμῖν λέγω. (In this latter passage, 
however, it will be remarked that the preposition is πρός and 
not κατά, as in the passage before us, and that ὑμῖν is in the 
text, whereas here there is no pronoun used.) The two prin- 
cipal objections to this interpretation are, 1. That if λέγω re- 
fers to the preceding verses the sense must be, ‘I make this 
exhibition of the character of your teachers in order to shame 
you” This would do very well if what follows carried out 
that idea; but instead of speaking of the Corinthians, and en- 
deayouring to convince them of their folly in adhering to such 
men as teachers, he immediately speaks of himself, ana shows 
how he was despised as weak. 2. According to this interpre- 
tation there is great difficulty in explaining the following 


11. CORINTHIANS 11, 22. 23. ATL 


clause. It would not do to say, ‘I speak to shame yov that 
I was weak ;’ or, if ὅτε be made causal, ‘I speak to shame you 
because I was weak,’ still the sense is not good. The former 
interpretation of this difficult passage is therefore to be pre- 
ferred. 


22. Are they Hebrews? so (am) I. Are they Is- 
raclites? so (am) I. Are they the seed of Abraham? 
so (am) 1. 


In this verse the apostle begins his boasting by showing 
that in no point did he come behind his opponents. The 
three designations here used belonged to the chosen people, 
The Hebrews were Israelites, and the Israelites were the seed 
of Abraham. The first, as Meyer remarks, is the national 
designation of the people of God ; the second their theocratic 
appellation ; and the third marked them as the heirs of Abra- 
ham and expectants of the Messianic kingdom. Or, as Ben- 
gel remarks with no less justice, the first refers to their nation- 
al, and the two others to their religious or spiritual relstion, 
A Hebrew was not a Jew of Palestine as distinguished from 
the Hellenists, or Jews born out of Palestine and speaking 
the Greek language. For Paul himself was born in Tarsus, 
and yet was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, that is, a man of pure 
Hebrew descent. In Acts 6,1 the word is used for the Jews 
of Palestine in distinction from other Jews, but it is obvious- 
ly not so either here or in Phil. 3, δ. 


23. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as 
a fool) 1 (am) more; in labours more abundant, in 
stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in 
deaths oft. 


Τὰ all that related to the privileges of birth, as belongin 
to the chosen seed, Paul stood on a level with the chief of his 
opposers ; in all that related to Christ and his service he stood 
far above them. Are they the ministers of Christ? Such 
they were by profession, and such for the moment he admits: 
them to be, although in truth they were the ministers of Satan, 
as he had said in v. 15. JZ more (ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, where ὑπέρ is used 
as an adverb). This may mean either, 1 am more than a 
(διάκονος) minister of Christ; or, lam a minister or servant of | 

12 


272 11. CORINTHIANS 11, 24. 


Christ in a higher measure than they. That is, I am more 
devoted, laborious and suffermg than they. The latter is the 
true explanation as is clear from what follows, and because in 
Paul’s language and estimation there was no higher title or 
service than that of minister of Christ. J speak as a fool, 
παραφονῶν λαλῶ. ‘This is a strong expression, ‘I speak as one 
beside himself” This is said out of the consciousness of ill- 
desert and utter insufficiency. Feelmg himself to be in him- 
self both impotent and unworthy, this selflaudation, though 


having reference only to his infirmities and to what God had 


done in him and by him, was in the highest degree painful 
and humiliating to the apostle. It is Paul’s judgment of him- 
self, not the judgment which others are presumed to pass 
upon him. Jn labours more abundant, ἐν κόποις περισσοτέρως, 
There -are three ways of explaining this and the following 
clauses, 1. In (or, by) labours Iam more abundantly the ser- 
vant of Christ. 2. Or, (supplying ἦν or γέγονα.) I have been 
more abundant in labours. 8. Or, connecting, as De Wette 
and Meyer do, the adverbs with the substantives with the sense 
of adjectives, by more abundant labours. This latter explana- 
tion can better be carried through, and expresses the sense 
clearly. Jn stripes above measure, ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως, 
i. e. by stripes exceeding measure (in frequency and severity). 
In prisons more frequent, either, as before, ‘I have been more 
frequently imprisoned,’ or, ‘By more frequent prisons. The 
sense remains the same. Jn deaths oft, ἐν Javaros πολλάκις, 
by manifold deaths. Paul, in accordance with common 
usage, elsewhere says, “I die daily.” He suffered a thousand 
deaths, in the sense of being constantly in imminent danger 
of death and of enduring its terrors. 


24. 25. Of the Jews five times received I forty 
(stripes) save one. ‘Thrice was 1 beaten with rods, 
once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night 
and a day I have been in the deep. 


These verses are a parenthesis designed to confirm the 
receding assertion that he had laboured and suffered more 
in the service of Christ than any of his opponents. In v. 26 
the construction is resumed. The apostle had at this period 


of his history been scourged eight times; five times by the 


Jews and thrice by the Romans. Of this cruel ill-treatment 


ee oe a a ree 


II. CORINTHIANS 11, 26. 273 


at the hands of his own countrymen, the Acts of the Apostles 
contain no record; and of the three occasions on which he 
was beaten with rods, that mentioned in Acts 16, 22 as having 
occurred at Philippi is the only one of which we have else- 
where any account. In the law of Moses, Deut. 25, 3, it was 
forbidden to inflict more than forty stripes on an offender, and 
it appears that the Jews, in their punctilious observance of 
the letter of the law, were in the habit of inflicting only 
thirty-nine so as to be sure not to transgress the prescribed 
limit. From the distinction which the apostle makes between 
receiving stripes at the hands of the Jews and being beaten 
with rods, it 1s probable that the Jews were at that period 
accustomed to use a lash. The later Rabbis say that the 
scourge was made with three thongs, so that each blow in- 
flicted three stripes; and that only thirteen strokes were 
given to make up the prescribed number of thirty-nine lashes. 
Once was I stoned. Acts 14,19. On this occasion his ene- 
mies supposed he was dead. He must therefore have been 
rendered for the time insensible. Thrice I suffered shipwreck. 
Of this we have no mention in the Acts. e shipwreck in 
which Paul was involved on his journey to Rome, was at a 
much later period. A night aad a day have I been in the 
deep. That is, for that length of time he was tossed about by 
the waves, clinging to a fragment of a wreck. A night and 
day (νυχϑήμερον), 1. 6. a Whole day of twenty-four hours. The 
Jews commenced the day at sunset. 


26. (In) journeyings often, (in) perils of waters, 
(in) perils of robbers, (in) perils by (mine own) coun- 
trymen, (in) perils by the heathen, (in) perils in the 
city, (in) perils in the wilderness, (in) perils in the sea, 
(im) perils among false brethren. 


Our translators have throughout this passage supplied the 
preposition in. But as ἐν in the receding verse is used in- 
strumentally, so here we have the instrumental dative, by 
journeyings, by perils, &c. It was by voluntarily exposing 
timself to these dangers, and by the endurance of these suf- 
ferings the apostle proved his ier claim to be regarded 
as a devoted minister of Christ. Perils of water, literally, of 
rivers ; as distinguished from the dangers of the sea mentioned 
afterwards. History shows that in the country traversed in 


πα τα τὰν. 


as eee ee ee ee Ὁ ΡΨ en ee” SaaS eee ee, a eh  ΨΉΥ Sere a oe 


274 11, CORINTHIANS 11, 27. 


Paul’s journeys great danger was often encountered in passi 
the rivers which crossed his path. Perils of robbers, to which 
all travellers were exposed. Perils from my own countrymen 
(ἐκ γένους as opposed to ἐξ εϑνῶν). The Jews were, at least in 
most cases, the first to stir up opposition and to excite the 
mob against the apostle. This was the case at Damascus, 
Acts 9, 23; at Jerusalem, Acts 9,29; at Antioch in Pisidia, 
Acts 13,50; at Iconium, 14,5; at Lystra, 14,19; at Thessa- 
lonica, Acts 17,5; at Berea, Acts 17,13; at Corinth, 18, 12. 
From the Gentiles, as at Philippi and Ephesus. Jn the city, 
as in Damascus, Jerusalem and Ephesus. Jn the desert. The 
dangers of the desert are proverbial. Paul traversed Arabia, 
as well as the mountainous regions of Asia Minor, and was 
doubtless often exposed in these journeys to the dangers of: 
robbers, as well as those arising from exposure, and hunger 
and thirst. Of the sea, not only in the case of shipwreck be- 
fore mentioned, but to other and lesser perils. Perils among 
Salse brethren, referring probably to the treachery of those 
who falsely professed to be his brethren in Christ, and yet 
endeavoured to deliver him into the power of his enemies. 


27. In weariness and painfulness, in watchings 
often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold 
and nakedness. 


Here the preposition év is again used, but in its instru- 
mental sense dy, It was dy these trials and sufferings he 
proved himself to be what he claimed to be. By weariness 
and painfulness, ἐν κόπῳ καὶ μόχϑῳ, These words are thus as- 
sociated in 1 Thess. 2,9, and 2 Thess. 3, 8, in both of which 
places they are rendered “labour and travail.” They both 
express the idea of wearisome toil and the consequent ex- 
haustion and suffering. By watchings often, referring to the 
sleepless nights which he was often compelled by business or 
suffering to pass. In hunger and thirst, in fastings often. 
The common meaning of the word νηστεία, and its connection 
with the words “hunger and thirst,” implying involuntary ab- 
stinence from food, are urged as reasons for understanding it 
to mean voluntary fasting. But the context is in favour of the 
common interpretation which makes it refer to involuntary ab- 
stinence. Every other particular here mentioned belongs to 


the class of sufferings; and it would therefore be incongruous: 


a S| “ .- ὦ ““"» ὁ, ἐδ 


11. CORINTHIANS 11, 28. 275 


to introduce into this enumeration any thing so insignificant 
and so common as religious fasting. In this the Pharisees 
were his equals and probably fur his superior. They fasted 
twice in the week. Paul was no ascetic, and certainly did not 
deny himself food to the extent of making that denial an act of 
heroism. It is remarkable that we have no record of Paul’s 
ever having fasted at all, unless Acts 13,3. By cold and na- 
kedness, ‘This completes the picture. The greatest of the 
apostles here appears before us, his back lacerated by frequent 
scourgings, his body worn by hunger, thirst, and exposure; 
cold and naked, persecuted by Jews and Gentiles, driven from 
place to place without any certain dwelling. This passage, 
more perhaps than any other, makes even the most laborious 
of the modern ministers of Christ hide their face in shame. 
What have they ever done or suffered to compare with what 
this apostle did? It is a consolation to know that Paul is now 
as pre-eminent in glory, as he was here in suffering, 


28. Besides those things that are without, that 
which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the 
churches. | 


This verse is variously interpreted. The first clause, Be- 
sides those things which are without, is rendered in the same 
way in the Vulgate. Praeter illa, quae extrinsecus sunt. So 
also Calvin, Beza, and others. But this is contrary to the 
usage of the words τὰ παρεκτός, which mean, the things besides, 
i, 6. other things; so that the sense of the clause χωρὶς τῶν 
παρεκτός is, ‘Not to mention other things.’ The preceding 
enumeration, copious as it is, was not exhaustive. There 
were other things of a like nature which the apostle would 
not stop to mention, but proceeded to another class of trials. 
That class included his exhausting official duties. Z'hat which 
cometh on me daily, viz., the care of all the churches. The 
latter clause is, according to this explanation, assumed to be 
explanatory of the former. The same view is taken of the 
relation of the two clauses by Meyer, who renders the passage 
thus: “My daily attention, the care of all the churches.” 
This latter interpretation assumes that instead of ἐπισύστασις, 
which is in the common text, the true reading is ἐπίστασις, a 
reading adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Riickert, 
and others. Both words are used in the sense of concourse, 


276 11. CORINTHIANS 11, 29. 


tumult, as of the people, see Acts 24,12, but the former has 
also the sense of care, or attention. If the corrected text be 
adopted, then the interpretation just mentioned is to be pre- 
ferred. ‘ Without mentioning other things, (ἡ επίστασὶς μου ἣ 
kad ἡμέραν) my daily oversight, the care of all the church? 
If the common text, although not so well sustained, be ad- 
hered to, the meaning probably is, ‘My daily concourse 
(quotidiani hominum impetus). That is, the crowding upon 
him every day of people demanding his attention. This is 
the sense expressed by Luther; ‘ Dass ich taglich werde an- 
gelaufen, und trage Sorge fiir alle Gemeinen.” The solicitude 
which the apostle felt for the churches which he had founded, 
is apparent from all his epistles; and it may be easily im- 
agined how various and constant must have been the causes 
and occasions of anxiety and trouble on their account. 


29. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is of- 
fended, and I burn not? 


That is, he sympathized with his fellow Christians, who 
were his children in the faith, so that their sorrows and suffer- 
ings were his own. This was the consequence not only of the 
communion of saints, in virtue of which, “if one member suf 
fer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be hon- 
oured, all the members rejoice with it,” 1 Cor. 12, 26; but 
also of the peculiar relation which Paul sustained to the 
churches, which he had himself planted. Who is weak ; i. 6. 
in faith, or scrupulous through want of knowledge, compare 
1 Cor. 9,22, and I am not weak? That is, with whose in- 
firmities of faith and knowledge do I not sympathize? He 
pitied their infirmities and bore with their prejudices. To 
the weak, he became as weak. There are men, says Calvin, 
who either despise the infirmities of their brethren, or trample 
them under their feet. Such men know little of their own 
hearts, and have little of the spirit of Paul or of Paul’s master. 
God never quenehes the smoking flax. Who is offended 
(σκανδαλίζεται), i. 6. caused to stumble, or led into sin; and 7 
burn not. That is, and I am not indignant? It was not to 
Paul a matter of indifference when any of the brethren, by 
the foree of evil example, or by the seductions of false teach- 
ers, were led to depart from the truth or to act inconsistently 
with their profession, Such events filled him not only with 
grief at the fall of the weak, but with indignation at the au- 


Mag = μι ν:, 


ee OP ee eee ὦ 


II. CORIN THIANS 11, 80. 31. 277 


thors of their fall. Thus his mind was kept ina state of con- 
stant agitation by his numerous anxieties and his wide-hearted 


sympathy, 
30. If I must needs glory, I will glory of the 


things which concern mine infirmities. 


Paul’s boasting was not like that of the false teachers. 
They boasted not only of their descent, but of their learning, 
eloquence, and personal advantages; he boasted only of the 
things which implied weakness, his sufferings and privations. 
The future, καυχήσομαι, expresses a general purpose, illustrated 
in the past, and not having reference merely to what was to 
come. The persecutions, the poverty, the scourgings, the 
hunger and nakedness of which Paul had boasted, were not 
things in which men of the world pride themselves, or which 
commonly attract human applause, 


31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. 


This is a peculiarly solemn asseveration. An oath is the 
act of calling God to witness the truth of what we say. Here 
the appeal is not simply to God as God, but to God in his pe- 
euliar covenant relation to believers. When the Israelite 
called on Jehovah as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
he recognized him not only as the creator and moral governor 
of the world, but as the covenant God of his nation. So the 
Christian when he calls God “The God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ,” recognizes him not only as his Creator, 
but as the author of redemption through his eternal Son, 
Jesus Christ is a designation of the Theanthropos, the histori- 
eal person so named and known, to whom God stood in the 
relation at once of God and Father. Our Lord had a de- 
pendent nature to which God stood in the relation of God, 
and a divine nature to which He stood in the relation of 
Father, and therefore to the complex person Jesus Christ 
God bore the relation of both God and Father. | 

There is a difference of opinion as to the reference of this 
passage. Some suppose that the apostle intended by this oath 
to confirm the truth of the whole preceding exhibition of his 
labours and sufferings; others, that it is to be confined to the 
assertion in y. 30, viz., that he would boast only of his infirmi- 


278 11. CORINTHIANS 11, 82. 


ties; others, as Calvin and many others, refer it to what fol- 
lows, i. e., to the account which he was about to give of his 
escape from Damascus. To give this explanation the more 
plausibility, Meyer assumes that Paul had intended to intro- 
duce an extended narrative of his escape and sufferings, be- 
ginning with the incident at Damascus, but was interrupted 
and did not carry out his intention. As, however, there is no 
intimation of this in the context, it is probable that the refer- 
ence is to the whole of the preceding narrative. He intended 
to satisfy his readers that he had not exaggerated or over- 
stated his sufferings. God knew that all he had said was 
true. 


32. In Damascus the governor under Aretas the 
king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, 
desirous to apprehend me. | 


It is useless to inquire why Paul introduces, as it were, as 
an after-thought, this disconnected account of his escape from 
Damascus, [Ὁ is enough that the fact occurred to him when 
writing, and that he saw fit to record it. The account here 
given agrees with that found in Acts 9, 24.25, except that 
there the attempt to apprehend the apostle is attributed to 
the Jews, and here to the governor of the city. There is no 
inconsistency between the two. ‘The governor acted no doubt 
at the instigation of the Jews. He had no grievance of his 
own to redress or avenge. ‘The governor, or ethnarch, a term 
applied to a vassal prince, or ruler appointed by a sovereign 
over a city or province. Governor under, literally, of Aretas 
the king. Aretas was a common name of Arabian kings, as 
Pharaoh of the kings of Bayt. A king of that name is men- | 
tioned as contemporary with the high-priest Jason,and withthe - 
king Antiochus Epiphanes. The one here referred to was the | 
father-in-law of Herod Antipas. Herod having repudiated 
the daughter of Aretas, the latter declared war against him 
and totally defeated his army. Vitellius, proconsul of Syria, 


undertook to punish him for this assault on a Roman yassal, 
but was arrested on his march by the death of the emperor 
Tiberius. It is commonly supposed that it was during this 
respite that Aretas, who was king of Petra, gained temporary 
possession of Damascus, Kept the city of the Damascenes, 
not, besieged the city, but as it is expressed in Acts, watched 


a a δ, 


II. CORINTHIANS 11, 33. 279 


the gates. The words of the Damascenes (τὴν Δαμασκηνῶν 
πόλιν) are omitted in the original edition of 1611 of King 
James’s version, but are now found in all the copies. With a 
garrison. The word is simply ἐφρούρει, he kept, or guarded. 
Desirvous to apprehend me. The governor set a guard at the 
gates to seize the apostle should he attempt to leave the 
city. 


33. And through a window in a basket was I let 
down by the wall, and escaped his hands. 


Through a window, ϑυρίς, a little door, or a re. This 
was either an aperture in the wall itself, or, as is more proba- 
ble, a window of a house built upon the walls of the city. <A 
representation of these overhanging houses as still to be seen 
on the walls of Damascus, may be found in Conybeare and 
Howson’s life of St. Paul, p. 98 of the Svo. edition. The same 
mode of escape was adopted by the spies mentioned in Joshua 
2, 15, and by David, 1 Sam. 19, 12. 


CHAPTER XIL 


The account of a remarkable vision granted to the apostle, vs. 1-6. The 
other evidences of his apostleship, and his conduct and purvoses in the 
exercise of his office, vs. 7-21. 


Pauls revelations and visions. 


He would give over boasting, and refer not to what he had 
done, but to what God had done; not to scenes in which he 
was the agent, but to those in which he was merely the sub- 
ject—to revelations and visions. He had been caught up to 
the third heavens, and received communications and revela- 
tions which he was not permitted to make known. This was 
to him, and to all who believed his word, a more reliable evi- 
dence of the favour of God to him as an apostle than any thing 
he had yet mentioned, vs. 1-6. With this extraordinary proof 
of the divine favour there was given him some painful bodily 
affection, from which he could not be delivered, in order to 


280 II. CORINTHIANS 12, 1. 


keep him duly humble, vs. 7-10. This reference to his ἐν 
sonal experience was exceedingly painful to him. He had- 
been forced by their unreasonable opposition to speak of him- 

self as he had done; for the external signs of his apostleship 

should have convinced them that he was the immediate mes 

senger of Christ, vs.11.12. They themselves were a standing” 
proof that he was truly an apostle. They were not less richly 

endowed than other churches founded by other apostles. If 

inferior at all, it was only that he had refused to be supported 

by them. This he could not help. He was determined ἰὸς 
pursue in the future the course in that matter which he had 

hitherto adopted; neither by himself nor by others, neither 

mediately nor immediately, would he receive any thing at 

their hands, vs. 13-18. All this self-vindication was of little 

account. It was a small matter what they thought of him. 

God is the only competent and final judge. His fear was that 

when he reached Corinth he would be forced to appear as a 

judge; that not finding them what he desired them to be, he 

should be obliged to assume the aspect of a reprover, vs. 

19-21. 


1. It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. 
I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 


The authorities differ much as to the text in this verse. 
The common text has δή (indeed, doubtless) with few MSS. or 
versions in its support. Many of the oldest MSS. read δεῖ, it 
is necessary ; some few δέ, which is adopted by Meyer as the 
original reading. The difference is only as to the shades of 
the thought. ‘The idea is that boasting is not expedient ; he 
will pass to something else, or at least to things which implied 
no agency or superior power on his part. Js not expedient. 
Here again some MSS. read with the common text, οὐ συμφέ- 
ρει μοι, ἐλεύσομαι yap, (ts not expedient for me, for I will come) 
others with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Rickert, οὐ συμφέρον 
μὲν, ἐλεύσομαι δέ, (it is not expedient indeed, but I will come.) 
The common text is on the whole to be preferred. Boasting, 
the apostle says, is not expedient for me, either in the sense 
that it does not become me, is not a seemly or proper thing ; 
or, is not profitable ; does not contribute to set my apostleship 
in a clear light. There is a better way of proving my divine. 
mission than by boasting. The former explanation is better 
suited to the apostle’s mode of representation. He had re-. 


1: CORINTHIANS 12, 2. 281 


peatedly spoken of boasting as a kind of folly, something de- 
rogatory and painful. He expresses the same feeling here 
when he says it is not expedient. J will come. Our translat- 
ors omit the γάρ, for I will come. The connection is with a 
thought omitted. Boasting is not expedient, (therefore I de- 
sist,) for I will pass to something else. What follows in the 
relation of the revelations made to him, was no self-laudation, 
but a recital of God’s goodness. Visions and revelations. 
The latter term is, on the one hand, more general than the 
former, as there might be revelations where there were no 
visions; and, on the other, the latter is higher than the for- 
mer, as implying a disclosure of the import of the things seen. 
Of the Lord ; not visions of which the Lord was the object ; 
it was not seeing the Lord that he here speaks of, but visions 
and revelations of which the Lord is the author. By Zord is 
obviously to be understood Christ, whose continued existence 
and divine power over the thoughts and states of the soul is 
hereby recognized, 


2. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years 
ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether 
out of the body, 1 cannot tell: God knoweth ;) such 
an one caught up to the third heaven. 


He speaks of himself in the third person, “I knew a man.” 
Why he does this is not clear. He narrates what had hap- 
ened as though he had been a spectator of the scene, perhaps 
cause his own activity was so completely in abeyance, A 
man in Christ ; ἃ man who was in Christ; the scriptural 
designation of a Christian, because union with Christ makes a 
man a Christian. It is the one only indispensable condition 
of salvation; so that all who are in Christ are saved, and all 
who are out of Christ perish. It is also the plain doctrine of 
the Bible that, so far as adults are concerned, this saving 
union with Christ is conditioned, not on any thing external, 
not on union with this or that external church, but on a per- 
sonal appropriating act of faith, by which we receive and rest 
on Christ alone for salvation. And still further, it is no less 
clearly taught that holiness of heart and life is the certain 
fruit and therefore the only satisfactory evidence of the genu- 
ineness of that faith. Above fourteen years ago. The event 
referred to in this verse is not the same as that which occurred 


282 II. CORINTHIANS 12, 8. 4. 


at the time of Paul’s conversion. That was a vision of Christ 
to the apostle here on earth, this was a translation of the 
apostle into heaven; that occurred twenty years before the 
probable date of this epistle. So that the two agree neither 
in nature, nor in the time of their occurrence. Whether in 
the body or out of the body, I cannot tell. The point as to 
which Paul was in doubt, was not the nature of the event, 
not as to whether it was a mere exaltation of his conscious- 
ness and perceptions or a real translation, but simply whether 
that translation was of the soul separated from the body, or 
of the body and soul together. Though heaven isa state, it 
is also a place. According to the scriptural representation, _ 
more is necessary to our introduction into heaven than mere-  _ 
ly opening the eyes to what is now about us and around us, 
The gloritied body of our Lord is somewhere, and not every- 
where. Such an one caught up; ἁρπαγέντα, carried away, 
the proper term to express a removal from one place to an- 
other without the agency of the subject. Paul was entirely 
passive in the translation of which he here speaks. Comp. — 
Acts 8,39. 1 Thess, 4,17, “Caught up to meet the Lord in 
the air.” 700 the third heaven. ‘This means either the highest 
heavens; or, on the assumption that Paul used the language 
and intended to conform to the ideas of the Rabbins who 
taught that there were seven heavens, it means the air, the 
region of the clouds. He was caught up into the air, and 
then still further raised to Paradise. The former explanation 
is to be preferred, 1. Because there is no evidence that the 
opinions of the Jewish writers, whose works are still extant, 
were prevalent at the time of the apostle. 2. Because there 
is no evidence in the New Testament that the sacred writers 
adopted those opinions. 8. Because if Paul believed and — 
tanght that there were seven heavens, that is, if he sanctioned 
the Rabbinical doctrine on that subject, it would be a part of 
Christian doctrine, which it is not. It is no part of the faith 
of the Christian church. 4. Because it is plain that the “ third 
heaven ” and “paradise” are synonymous terms; and paradise, 
as is admitted, at least by those who suppose that Paul here 
speaks as a Jew, means heaven. 


ee eS ee oe 


¥ 
q 
Ἢ 
7 
( 
Υ 
‘ 


3.4. And I knew such a man, (whether in the 
body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth ;) 
how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard 


II. CORINTHIANS 12, 5. 6. 283 


unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to 
utter. 


This is a repetition of v. 2, with the exception of the sub- 
stitution of the word “ paradise” for the phrase “the third 
heaven.” Paradise is a word of Sanscrit origin, and signifies 
a park, or garden. It is used in the Septuagint, Gen. 2, 8, in 
the description of Eden, which was a paradise or garden. The 
word was early used among the Jews as a designation of 
heaven, or the abode of the blessed after death, as appears 
from Luke 23, 43, (compare Ecclesiasticus 40, 17, 28.) In 
Rev. 2, 7, it occurs in the same sense. And heard unspeaka- 
ble words, ἄῤῥητα ρήματα, literally, unspoken words; here ob- 
viously the meaning is words not to be spoken, as explained 
by what follows. Which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 

e communications made to the apostle he was not allowed 
to make known to others. The veil which conceals the mys- 
teries and glories of heayen God has not permitted to be 
raised. It is enough that we know that in that world the 
saints shall be made perfectly holy and perfectly blessed in 
the full enjoyment of God forever. 


5. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will 
not glory, but in mine infirmities. 


Of such a one, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοιούτου, for such a one, i. 6, in his 
behalf; or, ὑπέρ being taken in the sense of περί, about, or 
concerning. This latter gives the better sense. ‘ Concerning 
such a person 1 will glory.” This is equivalent to saying, 
‘Such an event is a just ground of glorying.’ But τοιούτου is 
not to be taken as neuter, (of such a thing,) as is plain from 
the antithetical ἐμαυτοῦ, ‘Of such a one, bat not of myself? 
The translation which he had experienced was a _ proper 

ound of boasting, because it was a gratuitous favour. It 
implied no superiority on the part of the subject of this act of 
divine goodness, and therefore might be gloried in without 
assuming any special merit to himself. Of myself I will not 
glory ; that is, he would not boast of his personal qualities as 
entitling him to admiration. But (εἰ μή, except) in my in- 
Jirmities. That is, ‘I will boast concerning myself only of 
those things which prove or imply my own weakness.’ 


6. For though I would desire to glory, I shall not 


284 II. CORINTHIANS 12, 7. 


be a fool; for I will say the truth: but (now) I for- 
bear, lest any man should think of me above that 
which he seeth me (to be), or (that) he heareth of me. 


The connection as indicated by (γάρ) for, is not immedi- 
ately with what is expressed in the preceding verse, but with 
a thought obviously implied. Paul had said he would not 
glory concerning himself. The reason for this determination 
was not the want of grounds of boasting. ‘I could do it, for 
if I chose to boast, 7 should not be a Pia! ; 1. 6. an empty 
boaster—for I would speak the truth. But 7 forbear (φείδο- 
μαι δέ 56. τοῦ καυχᾶσϑαι). Abundant as were the materials for 
boasting at the apostle’s command, justly as he could refer to 
the extraordinary gifts with which he was endowed, and the 
extraordinary success which had attended his labours, he did 
not dwell on these things. The reason which he assigns for 
this forbearance is that others might not be led to think of 
him too highly. He did not wish to be judged of by what 
he said of himself or of his experiences. He preferred that 
men should judge of him by what they saw or heat: 


7. And lest I should be exalted above measure 
through the abundance of the revelations, there was 
given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of 
Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above 
measure. 


As Paul determined not to give occasion to others to 
think too highly of him, he here tells us that God provided 
against his being unduly elated even in his own mind. It isa 
familiar matter of experience that men are as much exalted 
in their own estimation by the distinguishing favour of their 
superiors, as by the possession of personal advantages. There- 
fore the apostle, although he would not boast of himself, was 
still in danger of being unduly elated by the extraordinary 
manifestations of the divine favour. The order of the words 
is inverted. ‘ And by the excess of revelations lest I should 
be exalted above measure;” ὑπεραίρωμαι, be lifted up above 
what is meet or right. The expression excess, or exceeding 
abundance, of revelations seems to refer not exclusively to the 
event above mentioned, but to other similar communications 
made to him at other times. That was not the only occasion 


—— = — 


a τι Ὺο Ore a eee 


11, CORINTHIANS 12, 7. 28. 


on which God had unveiled to the apostle the treasures of di- 
vine knowledge. There was given to me,i.e. by God. It was 
God who sent the trial here referred to, and from God the 
apostle sought deliverance. A thorn in the flesh, σκόλοψ τῇ 
σαρκί. The word σκόλοψ properly means a sharpened stake, a 
palisade, then any piece of sharpened wood, and specifically a 
thorn. This Jast is the meaning best suited to this passage, 
and is the one commonly adopted. Others say the meaning 
is, “a goad for the flesh,” borrowing a figure from oxen, 
metaphora a bobus sumpta, as Calvin says; others again un- 
derstand σκολόψ to refer to a stake on which offenders were 
papered, or the cross on which they were suspended. A 

e, or cross, for the flesh, would be a figurative expression 
for bodily torture. 2Jesh may be taken literally for the body, 
or figuratively for the corrupt nature. Calvin and many oth. 
ers take the latter view. But there is no reason for departing 
from the literal meaning, which should in all cases be pre- 
ferred, other things being equal. The dative σαρκί may be 
rendered either, for the Flesh, or pertaining to the flesh, i. 6. 
in thé flesh. This last is to be preferred, as it suits the con- 
text and is sustained by the parallel passage, Gal. 4, 14, τὸν 
πειρασμόν μου τὸν ἐν TH σαρκί pov. If this is the true interpreta- 
tion of the word σάρξ, it goes far to determine the nature of 
the thorn of which the apostle here speaks. It cannot be the 
evil suggestions, or fiery darts of Satan, as Luther, Calvin, and 
others, understand it; nor some prominent adversary, as 
many of the ancients suppose; it was doubtless some painful 
bodily affection, .A messenger of Satan. In the Bible the 
idea is often presented that bos diseases are at times pro- 
duced by the direct agency of Satan, so that they may be 
regarded as his messengers, something sent by him, The 
word Saray is used here probably as an indeclinable noun, as 
in the Septuagint in one or two places, but in the New Testa- 
ment it is always, except in this instance, declined, nom. 2a- 
τανᾶς, gen, Σατανᾶ. On this account many are disposed to 
take the word here as in the nominative, and translate the 
phrase angel Satan, i. e. an angel (or messenger) who is Sa- 
tan. But inasmuch as Saray is at times indeclinable, and as 
Satan is never in the New Testament called an angel, the 
great majority of commentators give the same exposition as 
that given in the English version. 1700 buffet me, ἵνα pe κολα- 
φίζη, in order that he (i. 6. the angel or messenger) may buffet 
me. The use of the present tense seems to imply that “the 


286 II. CORINTHIANS 12, 8.9. 


thorn in the flesh” was a permanent affection under which 


the apostle continued to suffer. Lest I should be exalted 
above measure. This last clause expresses the design of God 
in permitting the apostle to be thus afflicted. He carried 
about with him a continued evidence of his weakness. How- 
ever much he was exalted, although raised to the third heaven, 
he could not extract this rankling thorn. And the experience 
of God’s people shows that bodily pain has a special office to 
perform in the work of sanctification. In the unrenewed its 
tendency is to exasperate; when self-inflicted its tendency is 
to debase and fill the soul with grovelling ideas of God and 
religion, and with low self-conceit. But when inflicted by God 
on his own children, it more than any thing teaches them their 
weakness and dependence, and calls upon them to submit 
when submission is most difficult. Though he slay me, I will 
trust in him, is the expression of the highest form of faith. 


8.9. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, 
that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, 
My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is 
made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will 
I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of 
Christ may rest upon me. 


For this thing, ὑπὲρ τούτου, in reference to this ; ὑπέρ is 
here used in the sense of περί, Τούτου may be neuter, for this 
thing, i. 6. this affliction; or masculine referring to ἄγγελος, 
“about this angel or messenger of Satan,” &c. ‘This is gene- 
rally preferred on account of the following clause, iva ἀποστῇ, 
that he might depart from me. I besought the Lord, says 
the apostle, thrice. So our blessed Lord prayed “the third 
time saying, Let this cup pass from me.” Paul was therefore 
importunate in his petition for deliverance from this sore trial. 
He says, I besought the Lord, that is, Christ, as is clear not 
only from the general usage of Scripture, but from what fol- 
lows in v. 9, where he speaks of the “ power of Christ.” And 
he said unto me, εἴρηκέ μοι. The perfect is used either for the 
aorist, or in its proper force connecting the past with the 
present. The answer was not simply something past, but 
something which continued in its consoling power. Winer, 
§ 41. “He has said;” the answer was ever sounding in the 
apostle’s ears, and not in his ears only, but in those of all his 


hein te ΨΥ i ll νο- 


II. CORINTHIANS 12, 8. 9. 287 


suffering people from that day to this. Each hears the Lord 
say, My grace is sufficient for thee, ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις pov. 
These words should be engraven on the palm of every believ- 
er’s hand. ¢ My grace, either, ‘my love, or metonymically, 
‘the aid of the Holy Spirit,’ which is so often meant by the 
word grace. The connection is in favour of the common mean- 
ing of the term. ‘My love is enough for thee.’ These are the 
words of Christ. He says, to those who seek deliverance from 
pain and sorrow, ‘It is enough that I love you” This secures 
and implies all other good. His favour is life; his loving- 
kindness is better than life. » Yor my strength is perfected in 
weakness. This is given as the reason why the grace or fa- 
vour of Christ is all-sufficient. That reason is, that his 
strength is perfected, i. e. clearly revealed as accomplishing 
its end, in weakness. ‘ Weakness, in other words, says our 
Lord, is the condition of my manifesting my strength. The 
weaker my people are, the more conspicuous is my strength 
in sustaining and delivering them.’ Most gladly therefore 
will I rather glory in my infirmities. The sense is not, ‘I 
will glory in infirmities rather than in other things,’ as though 
Paul had written μᾶλλον ἐν ταῖς ασϑενείαις, but, ‘I will rather 

lory in infirmities than seek deliverance? If Paul’s suffer- 
ings were to be the occasion of the manifestation of Christ’s 
glory, he rejoiced in suffering. This he did ἡδίστα, most 
sweetly, with an acquiescence delightful to himself. His suf- 
ferings thus became the source of the purest and highest 
pleasure. Καυχάομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις does not mean J glory 
in the midst of infirmities, but on account of them. See 5, 
12. 10,15. Rom. 2, 23, &c., &c. This rejoicing on account 
of his sufferings, or those things which implied his weakness 
and dependence, was not a fanatical feeling, it had a rational 
and sufficient basis, viz., that the power of Christ may rest 
upon me. The word is ἐπισκηνώσῃ, may pitch its tent upon 
me ; i, e. dwell in me as in a tent, as the shechinah dwelt of 
old in the tabernacle. To be made thus the dwelling-place 
of the power of Christ, where he reveals his glory, was ἃ ra- 
tional ground of rejoicing in those infirmities which were the 
condition of his presence and the occasion for the manifesta- 
tion of his power. Most Christians are satisfied in trying to 


- be resigned under suffering. They think it a great thing if 


they can bring themselves to submit to be the dwelling-place 

of Christ’s power. To rejoice in their afilictions because 

thereby Christ is glorified, is more than they aspire to. Pauls 
13 ᾿ 


eS ΝΒ 


288 11. CORINTHIANS 12, 10. 


experience was far above that standard. The power of Christ 


is not only thus manifested in-the weakness of his people, but 
in the means which he employs for the accomplishment of his 
purposes. These are in all cases in themselves utterly inade- 
quate and disproportionate to the results to be obtained. The 
treasure is in earthly vessels that the excellency of the power 
may be of God. By the foolishness of preaching he saves 
those who believe. By twelve illiterate men the church was 
established and extended over the civilized world. By a few 
missionaries heathen lands are converted into Christian coun- 
tries. So in all cases, the power of Christ is perfected in 
weakness. We have in this passage a clear exhibition of the 
religious life of the apostle, and the most convincing proof 
that he lived in communion with Christ as God. To him he 
looked as to his supreme, omnipresent, all-sufficient Lord for 
deliverance from “the thorn in the flesh,” from the buffetings 
of the messenger of Satan, under which he had so grievously 
suffered. To him he prayed. From him he received the an- 
swer to his prayer. That answer was the answer of God; it 
implies divine perfection in him who gave it. To what suffer- 
er would the favour of a creature be sufficient? Who but 
God can say, ‘‘ My grace is sufficient for thee?” To Paul it 
was sufficient. It gave him perfect peace. It not only made 
him resigned under his afflictions, but enabled him to rejoice 
inthem. That Christ should be glorified was to him an end 
for which any human being might feel it an honour to suffer, 
It is therefore most evident that the piety of the apostle, his 
inward spiritual life, had Christ for its object. It was on him 
his religious affections terminated ; to him the homage of his 
supreme love, confidence and devotion was rendered. Chris- 
tianity is not merely the religion which Christ taught ; but it 
is, subjectively considered, the religion of which Christ is the 
source and the object. 


10. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in re- 
proaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses 
for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am 1 
strong. | 


The difference between glorying in infirmities and taking 
pleasure in them, is that the former phrase expresses the out- 
ward manifestation of the feeling expressed by the latter, 


11. CORINTHIANS 12, 11. 289 


He gloried in infirmities when he boasted of them, that is, re- 
ferred to them as things which reflected honour on him and 
were to him a source of joy. As they were thus the occa- 
sions of manifesting the power of Christ, Paul was pleased 
with them and was glad that he was subjected to them. Jn- 
Jirmities is a general term, including every thing in our condi- 
tion, whether moral or physical, which is an evidence or 
manifestation of weakness. From the context it is plain that 
the reference is here to sufferings, of which reproaches, neces- 
sities, persecutions and distresses were different forms. Jor 
Christ's sake. These words belong to all the preceding 
terms. It was in the sufferings, whether reproaches, necessi- 
ties, persecutions or distresses, endured for Christ's sake, that 
the apostle took pleasure. Not in suffering in itself consid- 
ered, not in self-inflicted sufferings, nor in those which were 
the consequences of his own folly or evil dispositions, but in 
sufferings endured for Christ’s sake, or considered as the con- 
dition of the manifestation of his power. For when I am 
weak, then am I strong. When really weak in ourselves, and 
conscious of that weakness, we are in the state suited to the 
manifestation of the power of God. When emptied of our- 
selves we are filled with God. Those who think they can 
change their own hearts, atone for their own sins, subdue the 
power of evil in their own souls or in the souls of others, who 
feel able to sustain themselves under affliction, God leaves to 
their own resources. But when they feel and acknowledge 
their weakness he communicates to them divine strength. 


11. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have com- 
pelled me: for I ought to have been commended of 
you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest 
apostles, though I be nothing. 


I am become a fool, &e. This some understand as ironi- 
cally said, because the self-vindication contained in what pre- 
cedes was not an act of folly, although it might be so regarded 
by Paul’s opposers. It is more natural, and more in keeping 
with the whole context, to understand the words as express- 
ing the apostle’s own feelings. Self-laudation is folly. It was 
derogatory to the apostle’s dignity, and painful to his feelings, 
but he was forced to submit to it. And, therefore, in his case 


and under the circumstances, although humiliating, it was 


290 II. CORINTHIANS 12,.12. 


right. Ye have compelled me. Τὸ was their conduct which 
made it necessary for the apostle to commend himself. This 
is explained in the following clause. Jor I ought to have been 
commended of you. If they had done their duty in vindicat- 
ing him from the aspersions of the false teachers, there would 
have been no necessity for him to vindicate himself. They 
were bound thus to vindicate him, for in nothing was he be- 
hind the very chiefest apostles. It is an imperative duty rest- 
ing on all who have the opportunity to vindicate the righteous, 
For us to sit silent when aspersions are cast upon good men, 
or when their character and services are undervalued, is to 
make ourselves partakers of the guilt of detraction. The 
Corinthians were thus guilty under aggravating cireum- 
stances; because the evidences of Paul’s apostleship and of 
his fidelity were abundant. He came behind in no one re- 
spect the very chief of the apostles. Besides this they were 
not only the witnesses of the signs of his divine mission, but 
they were the recipients of the blessings of that mission. For 
them therefore to fail to vindicate his claims and services was 
an ungrateful and cowardly dereliction of duty. By the chief 
of the apostles, still more clearly here than in 11, 5, are to be 
understood the most prominent among the true apostles, as 
Peter, James, and John, who in Gal. 2, 9 are called pillars. 
Neither here nor in 11, 5 is it an ironical designation of the 
false teachers. Though I be nothing. The apostle felt that 
what was the effect of the grace, or free gift of God, was no 
ground of self-complacency or self-exaltation. 1 Cor. 4, 7. 15, 
8-10. There were therefore united in him a deep sense of 
his own unworthiness and impotence, with the conviction and 


consciousness of being full of knowledge, grace and power, by - 


the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. 


12. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought 
among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and 
mighty deeds. 


This is the proof that he did not come behind the chief 
apostles. Truly ; μέν, to which no δέ answers. The opposi- 
tion is plain from the connection. ‘The signs indeed of an 
apostle were wrought among you, dwt you did not acknowl- 
edge them.” So Rickert, De Wette, and others. The signs 
of an apostle were the insignia of the apostleship; those 


II. CORINTHIANS 12, 12. 291 


things which by divine appointment were made the evidence 
of a mission from God. hen these were present an obliga- 
tion rested on all who witnessed them to acknowledge the 
authority of those who bore those insignia. ‘When they were 
absent, it was, on the one hand, an act of sacrilege to claim 
the apostleship; and, on the other, an act of apostacy from 
God to admit its possession. To acknowledge the claims of 
those who said they were apostles and were not, was (and is) 
to turn from God to the creature, to receive as divine what 
was in fact human or Satanic. This is evidently Paul’s view 
of the matter, as appears from 11, 13-15, where he speaks of 
those who were the ministers of Satan and yet claimed to be 
the apostles of Christ. Comp. Rey. 2,2. These signs of an 
apostle, as we learn from Scripture, were of different kinds, 
Some consisted in the manifestations of the inward gifts of the 
apostleship (i. e. of those gifts the possession of which consti- 
tuted a man an apostle); such as plenary knowledge of the 
gospel derived by immediate revelation from Jesus Christ, 
Gal. 1,12. 1 Cor. 15, 3; inspiration, or that influence of the 
Holy Spirit. which rendered its possessor infallible in the com- 
munication of the truth, 1 Cor. 2, 10-13. 12, 8, in connection 
with 12, 29 and 14,37. Others of these signs consisted in the 
external manifestations of God’s favour sanctioning the claim 
to the apostleship, Gal. 2,8. To this class belongs fidelity in 
teaching the truth, or conformity to the authenticated stand- 
ard of faith, Gal. 1, 8.9. Unless a man was thus kept faithful 
to the gospel, no matter what other evidence of being an 
apostle he might be able to adduce, he was to be regarded as 
accursed, Gal. 1, 8. To this class also belong, success in 
preaching the gospel, 1 Cor. 9,2. 2 Cor. 3, 2.3; the power 
of communicating the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, 
Acts 8,18. 19,6; the power of working miracles, as appears 
from the passage under consideration, from Rom, 15, 18. 19, 
and many other passages, as Heb. 2,4. Mark 14, 20. Acts 5, 
12. 14,3; and a holy walk and conversation, 2 Cor. 6, 4, 
Without these signs no man can be recognized and obeyed as 
an apostle without apostacy from God; without turning from 
the true apostles to those who are the ministers of Satan, 
In all patience, or constancy. This does not ‘mean that the 
patient endurance of severe trials was. one of the signs of his 
apostleship, but that those signs were wrought out under ad- 
verse circumstances requiring the exercise of the greatest 
constancy. Jn signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds, These 


292 II. CORINTHIANS 12, 13. 14. 


are different designations for the same thing. Miracles are 
called signs in reference to their design, which is to confirm 
the divine mission of those who perform them; wonders be- 
cause of the effect which they produced; and mighty deeds 
(δυνάμεις) because they are manifestations of divine power. 


13. For what is it wherein ye were inferior to oth- 
er churches, except (it be) that I myself was not bur- 
densome to you? forgive me this wrong. 


For. The connection indicated by this particle is with 
the assertion inv. 12. ‘I am not inferior to the chief apostles, 
for you are not behind other churches” The fact that the 
churches founded by Paul were as numerous, as well furnished 
with gifts and graces, as those founded by the other apostles, 
was a proof that he was their equal. In other words, as it is 
said Gal. 2, 8, “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the 
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me 
towards the gentiles.” Comp. 1 Cor. 1,5-7. | Were ye infe- 
rior to other churches, literally, less, or weaker than, The 
verb ἡττάομαι (from ἥττων, less) has a comparative sense, and 
therefore is followed by ὑπέρ, beyond ; ‘weak beyond other 
churches,’ The only distinction to the disadvantage of the 
Corinthians was, that the apostle had refused to accept aid 
from them. This is not to be regarded as a sarcasm, or as a 
reproach, It was said in a tone of tenderness, as is plain from 
what follows. Forgive me this wrong. It was, apparently, a 
reflection on the Corinthians; it seemed to imply a want of 
confidence in their liberality or love, that Paul refused to 
receive from them what he willingly received from other 
churches. In the preceding chapter he endeavoured to con- 
vince them that his doing so was no proof of his want of affee- 
tion to them, or of his want of confidence in their love to him. 
His conduct in this matter had other and suflicient reasons, 
reasons which constrained him to persist in this course of con- 
duct, however painful to him and to them. 


14. Behold, the third time I am ready to come to 
you; and 1 will not be burdensome to you: for I seck 
not yours, but you. or the children ought not to lay 
up for the parents, but the parents for the children. 


OS a a ae en ee ere ee. ῃ iil 


11, CORINTHIANS 12, 15. 16. 293 


The Acts of the Apostles mention but one visit of Paul to 
Corinth prior to the date of this epistle. From this passage, 
as well as from 2, 1 and 13, 1. 2, it is plain that he had already 
been twice in that city. The words, therefore, the third time, 
in this verse, belong to the word come, and not to J am ready. 
The sense is not, ‘I am the third time ready,’ but, ‘I am 
ready to come the third time.” His purpose was to act on 
this third visit on the same principle which had controlled his 
conduct on the two preceding occasions. JZ will not be bur- 
densome to you, L will receive nothing from you. For this he 
gives two reasons, both not only consistent with his love for 


-them, but proofs of his love. or I seek not yours, but you. 


This is the first reason. He had no mercenary or selfish ends 
to accomplish. It was not their money, but their souls he 
desired to win. For the children ought not to lay up for the 
parents, but the parents for the children. This was the second 
reason. He stood to them in the relation of a parent. In the 
course of nature, it was the parent’s office to provide for the 
children, and not the children for the parent. You must al- 
low me, says Paul, a parent’s privilege. Thus gracefully and 
tenderly does the apostle reconcile a seemingly ungracious act 
with the kind feelings which he cherished in himself and de- 
sired to excite in them. 


15. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for 
re τοῦτο the more abundantly I love you, the less 
be loved. 


As Iam your father, I will gladly act as such, spend and 
be spent for you; even though I forfeit your love by acting 
in a way which love forces me to act. This is the strongest 
expression of disinterested affection. Paul was willing not 
only to give his property but himself, his life and strength, 
for them (literally, for your souls, ὑπέρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν), not 
only without a recompense, but at the cost of their love, 


16. But be it so, I did not burden you: neverthe- 
less, being crafty, I caught you with guile. | 
Be it so ; that is, admitted that I did not ἜΡΩΣ bur- 


den you, yet (you may say) I craftily did it through others. 
Phis was dediented to meet the ungenerous objection which 


294 11. CORINTHIANS 12, 17-19. 


the false teachers might be disposed to make. They migl 
insinuate that although he refused to receive any thing εἴ 
self, he quartered his friends upon them, or spoiled them 
through others. J caught you with guile, δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον, 
i. e. I despoiled you by artifice, as an animal is sind “ἂν bei i 
deceived. ‘This shows the character of the opponents of the 
apostle in Corinth. That he should think it necessary to 
guard against insinuations so ungenerous and so unfounded, 
is proof of his wisdom in refusing t to give such antagonists the 
least occasion to question the purity of his motives, =a 


17.18. Did I make a gain of you by any of them 
whom I sent unto you? I desired Titus, and with 
(him) I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of 
you? walked we not in the same spirit? (walked we) 
not in the same steps ? 


The best refutation of the insinuation that Paul did in an 
underhand way by others what he refused to do openly and 
in his own person, was an appeal to facts. The Corinthians 
knew the charge to be unfounded. They knew that no one 
of those whom Paul had sent to Corinth received any com: 
pensation at their hands, This was specially true in the case 
of Titus, his immediate representative. All his messengers 
followed the example, and doubtless the injunctions of Paul, 
in bearing their own expenses, ‘The mission of Titus to Cor- 
inth here referred to, is not that mentioned in chap. 8, which 
was not yet accomplished, but that mentioned in chap. 7, de- 
signed to ascertain the effect produced by Paul’s previous | 
letter. In the same spirit ; either the same inward disposi- 
tion of mind, or with the same Holy Spirit, i. e. imbued and 
guided by the same divine agent, who controls the conduct 
of the people of God. Jn the same steps. Paul and his mes- 
sengers walked in the same footsteps. That is, they all fol- 
lowed Christ, whose steps mark the way in which his followers 
are to tread. 


19, Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto 
you? we speak before God in Christ: but (we do) all 
things, dearly beloved, for your edifying. 


There were two false impressions which the apostle ‘na 


| 
Ὶ 
' 
᾿ 
᾿ 


II. CORINTHIANS 12, 20. 295 


designs to correct. First, that he felt himself ucecuntable to 
the Corinthians, or that they were the judges at whose bar he 
was defending himself. Second, that his object was in any — 
respect personal or selfish. He spoke before God, not before 
them ; for their edification, not for his own reputation. 

Again think ye. Do you again think, as you have thought 
before. Instead of πάλιν, again, the MSS. D, E, J, K read 
πάλαι, formerly, long. This reading is adopted by the majori- 
ty of modern editors. The sense then is, ‘ Ye are long of the 
opinion,’ or, ‘Ye have long thought. Comp. εἰ πάλαι ἐπέϑα- 
ver, whether he had been long dead, in Mark 15,44. The 
common reading has so much MSS. authority in its favour, 
and it gives so good a sense, that it is generally by the older 
editors and commentators retained. With πάλιν the passage 
is best read interrogatively. Do ye again think? as they had 
before done. See 3,1. 5,12. They were too much disposed 
to think that the apostle, like the false teachers, was anxious 
to commend himself to their favour, and to appeal to them as 
his judges. He on more occasions than one gives them to 
understand that he was not under their authority, his office 
was not received from their hands, and he was not accounta- 
ble to them for the manner in which he exercised it. See 
1 Cor. 4,3. Eecuse ourselves unto you ; ὑμῖν, before you as 
judges. FEzxcuse, & éopat, to talk oneself off, to plead, or 
answer for oneself. 'This was not the position which the 
apostle occupied. He was not an offender, real or supposed, 
arraigned at their bar. On the contrary, as he says, we speak 
before God ; i. 6. as responsible to him, and as in his presence ; 
in Christ, i. e. as it becomes one conscious of his union with 
the Lord Jesus. In all his self-vindication he considers him- 
self as a Christian speaking in the presence of God, to whom 
alone he was, as a divinely commissioned messenger, answera- 
ble for what he said. Al things, dearly beloved, for your 
edification. This is the second point. His apology, or self- 
vindication, had their good, not his reputation or advantage, 
for its object. 


20. For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find 
you such as [ would, and (that) I shall be found unto 
you such as ye would not: lest (there be) debates, en- 
vyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swell- 
ings, tumults. ? : 

13* 


296 11. CORINTHIANS 12, 21. 


He aimed at their edification, for he feared their state was 
not what he could desire. He feared lest they would not be 
acceptable to him, nor he to them. What he feared was that 


the evils to which frequent reference had already been made, τ΄ 


should be found still to exist. Those evils were, ἔρεις, conten- 
tions, such as existed between the different factions into which 
the church was divided, some saying we are of Paul, others, 
we are of Cephas, &c., see 1 Cor. 1,115; envyings, ζῆλοι, those 
feelings of jealousy and alienation which generally attend con- 
tentions; ϑυμοί, outbreaks of anger; ἐριϑεῖαι, cabals. The 
word is from ἔριϑος, a hireling, and is often used of a factious 
spirit of party; καταλαλιαὶ and ψιθυρισμοί, backbiting and whis- 
perings, i. e. open detractions and secret calumnies ; φυσιώσεις, 
swellings, i. e. manifestations of pride and insolence; ἀκατασ- 
τασίαι, tumults, i. e. those disorders which necessarily follow 
the state of things above described. This is a formidable list 
of evils, and it seems hard to reconcile what is here said with 
the glowing description of the repentance and obedience of 
the church found in the preceding part of this epistle, espe- 
cially in chapter 7. To account for this discrepancy some 
suppose, as before mentioned, that the latter part of this epis- 
tle, from ch. 10 to the end, formed a distinct letter written at 
a different time and under different circumstances from those 
under which the former part was written. Others, admitting 
that the two portions are one and the same epistle sent at the 
same time, still assume that a considerable interval of time 
elapsed between the writing of the former and latter parts of 
the letter; and that during that interval intelligence had 
reached the apostle that the evils prevailing in the church had 
not been so thoroughly corrected as he had hoped. The 
common and sufficient explanation of the difficulty is, that 
part of the congregation, probably the majority, were penitent 
and obedient, while another part were just the opposite. 
When the apostle had the one class in view he used the lan- 
guage of commendation; when the other, the language of 
censure. Examples of this kind are abundant in his epistles. 
The first part of his first epistle to the Corinthians is full of 
the strongest expressions of praise, but in what follows severe 
reproof fills most of its pages. 


21. (And) lest, when I come again, my God will 
humble me among you, and (that) I shall bewail many 


ee ee ee —— LULU ἘΥΠῊΝ 


II. CORINTHIANS 12, 21. 297 


which have sinned already, and have not repented of 
the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness, 
which they have committed. 


The same apprehension expressed under a different form. 
The word again may belong to coming, “me coming again ;” 
or with will humble, “God will humble me again.” This im- 

lies that during his second unrecorded visit, Paul was humbled 

y what he saw in Corinth, and grieved, as he says, 2, 1, in 
having to use severity in suppressing prevalent disorders. He 
feared lest his third view 2 prove like that painful second 
visit. The more obvious and natural connection, however, of 
πάλιν is with ἐλϑόντα, as in our version. ‘ Lest God will hum- 
ble me when I come again.’ Nothing filled the apostles with 
greater delight than to see the churches of their care stead- 
fast in faith and in obedience to the truth; and nothing so 
— and humbled them as the departure of their disciples 

om the paths of truth and holiness) Humble me among 
you ; πρὸς ὑμᾶς, in relation to you. 

And that I shall bewail, πενϑήσω. The word zev3éw is 
here used transitively; to mourn any one, to grieve for him. 
Many suppose that the sorrow here intended was that which 
arises from the necessity of punishing; so that the idea reall 
intended is, ‘I fear I shall have to discipline (or excommuni- 
cate) some, &e.’ But this, to say the least, is not necessary, 
All that the words or context requires is, that Paul dreaded 
having to mourn over many impenitent members of the 
church. Many which have sin already and have not re- 
pented, πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων, many 
of those who having sinned shall not have repented. The προ 
in προημαρτηκότων is probably not to be pressed, so as to make 
the word refer to those who had sinned before some specific 
time,—as their profession of Christianity, or Paul’s previous 
visit. The force of the preposition is sufficiently expressed by 
the word heretofore. ‘Those who have heretofore sinned, 
What Paul feared, was, that when he got to Corinth he should 
find that many of those who had sinned, had not joined in the 
repentance for which he commended the congregation as a 
whole. Of the uncleanness, &c., which they committed. Ac- 
cording to Meyer, ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαϑαρσία, x.7.A., are to be connected 
with πενϑήσω, ‘I shall lament many on account of the unclean- 
ness, &c.? The position of the words is evidently in favour 
of the common construction. ‘ Who have not repented con- 


298 II. CORINTHIANS 18. 


cerning the uncleanness they have committed.’ The classes 
of sins most prevalent in Corinth were those referred to in Vv. 
20, arising out of the collisions of the different classes or par- 
ties in the church; and those here mentioned, arising out of 
the corruptions of the age and of the community. To make 
a holy church out of heathen, and in the midst of heathenism, 
was impossible to any but an almighty arm. And we know 
that in the work of sanctification of the individual or of a 
community, even Omnipotence works gradually, The early 
Christians were babes in Christ, much like the converts from 
among the heathen in modern times, , f 


as 
rr 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Threatening of punishment to impenitent offenders; exhortation to self-ex-. 
amination and amendment; conclusion of the epistle. 


Paul’s warnings and exhortations. 


Havine previously admonished and warned, he now distinctly 
announces his purpose to exercise his apostolic power in the 
punishment of offenders, vs. 1.2. As they sought evidence 
of his apostleship, he would show that although weak in him- 
self, he was invested with supernatural power by Christ. As 
Christ appeared as weak in dying, but was none the less im- 
bued with divine power, as was proved by his resurrection 
from the dead ; so the apostle in one sense was weak, in an- 
other full of power, vs. 3.4. Instead of exposing themselves 
to this exercise of judicial authority, he exhorts them to try 
themselves, since Christ lived in them unless they were repro- 
bates, v.5. He trusted that they would acknowledge him as 
an apostle, as he sought their good, vs. 6.7. His power was 
given, and could be exercised, only for the truth. He re- 
joiced in his own weakness and in the prosperity of the Co- 
rinthians, The object in thus warning them was to avoid the 
necessity of: exercising the power of judgment with which 
Christ had invested him, vs. 8-10. Concluding exhortation 
and benediction, vs, 11-13. nine! 3 oe aKa 


I OO ee LL = = 


II. CORINTHIANS 13, 1. 299 


1. This is the third (time) I am coming to you: 
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every 
word be established. 


From this it is evident that Paul had already been twice 
in Corinth. He was about to make his third visit. Those 
who do not admit that he went to Corinth during the interval 
between the writing the first and second epistle, say that all 
that is proved by this verse, is that “‘onse he had been there; 
a second time he had intended to come; now the third time 
he was actually coming.” Others, still more unnaturally, say 
he refers to his presence by letter, as Beza explains it: Binas 
suas epistolas pro tolidem profectionibus recenset. There is 
no necessity for departing from the obvious meaning of the 
words. The Acts of the Apostles do not contain a full record 
of all the journeys, labours and sufferings of the apostle. He 
may have visited Corinth repeatedly without its coming with- 
in the design of that book to mention the fact. Jn the mouth 
of two or three witnesses, dc, It was expressly enjoined in 
the Old Testament that no one should be condemned unless 
on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Num. 35, 30. 
Deut. 17,6. 19,15. In this latter passage, the very words 
used by the apostle are to be found: “One man shall not 
rise up against any man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any 
sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the 
mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” 
This principle of justice was transferred by our Lord to the 
New Dispensation. In his directions for dealing with offend- 
ers he says, “Take with thee one or two more, that in the 
mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be estab- 
lished,” Matt. 18, 16; see also John 8,17. Heb. 10, 28. In 
1 Tim. 5,19 the apostle applies the rule specially to the case 
of elders: ‘“ Against an elder receive not an accusation, but 
before two or three witnesses.” In the judgment of God, 
therefore, it is better that many offenders should go unpun- 
ished through lack of testimony, than that the security of 
reputation and life should be endangered by allowing a single 
witness to establish a charge against any man. ‘This principle, 
although thus plainly and repeatedly sanctioned both in the 
Old and New Testaments, is not held sacred in civil courts. 
Even in criminal cases the testimony of one witness is often 
considered sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused per- 
son, no matter how pure his previous reputation may have 


300 II]. CORINTHIANS 13, 2. 


been. Paul here announces his determination to adhere, in 
the administration of discipline, strictly to the rule relating to 


testimony laid down in the Scriptures. There are two expla- 


nations, however, given of this passage. Some suppose that 
Paul merely alludes to the prescription in the Law, and says 
that his three visits answers the spirit of the divine injunction 
by being equivalent to the testimony of three witnesses, Tres 
mei adventus trium testimoniorum loco erunt, says Calvin. 
This interpretation is adopted by a great many commentators, 
ancient and modern. But the formality with which the prin- 
ciple is announced, the importance of the principle itself, and 
his own recognition of it elsewhere, show that he intended to 
adhere to it in Corinth. Three visits are not the testimony 
of three witnesses. very word, πᾶν ρῆμα, every accusation, 
a sense which, agreeably to the usage of the corresponding 
Hebrew word, the Greek word ρῆμα has here in virtue of the 
context, as in Matt. 5,11. 18,16. 27,14. Shall be estab- 
lished, i. e. legally and conclusively proved. 


2. I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were 
present, the second time; and being absent now 1 
write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all 
other, that, if 1 come again, I will not spare. 


The meaning of this verse is doubtful. The words second 
time (τὸ δεύτερον.) may be connected with being present (ὡς 
mapwv,) or with I foretell (προλέγω). If the former, the sense 
may be, “I foretold (i. e. when in Corinth), and I foretell, as 
though present the second time, although yet absent, to those 
who heretofore have sinned, &c.” Ifthe latter connection be 
preferred, the sense is, “I foretold you, and foretell you the 
second time, as if present, although now absent, ὅσο. This 
is not consistent with the natural order of the words. Assum- 
ing Paul to have been already twice in Corinth, the simplest 
explanation of this verse is that given by Calvin, Meyer, 
Riickert, and others, “I have said before, and say before, as 
when present the second time, so now when absent, to those 
who have sinned, I will not spare.’ Paul gives now when 
absent the same warning that he gave during his second visit. 
The words προείπον and προλέγω are combined here as in Gal. 
5, 21 and 1 Thess. 3, 4. “I said before, and I forewarn.” 
Those who heretofore have sinned ; προημαρτηκόσι, to those 


CO υυ νων νυν σὺν 


II. CORINTHIANS 18, 8. 801 


who sinned before, not before Paul’s second visit, but those 
who heretofore have sinned, i. e. those who already stand in 
the category of known sinners, and to all other, i. 6. to those 
who were not thus known, who had not as yet offended. Jf 
I come again (εἰς τὸ πάλιν), I will not spare. Paul had for- 
borne long enough, and he was now determined to try the 
effect of discipline on those whom his arguments and exkorta- 
tions failed to render obedient. From this, as wen as from 
other passages of Paul’s epistles, two things are abundantly 
manifest. First, the right of excommunication in the church. 
It is only in established churches controlled by the state, or 


thoroughly imbued with Erastian principles, that this right is 


seriously questioned, or its exercise precluded. In his former 
epistle, chap. 5, the apostle had enjoined on the Corinthians 
the duty of casting out of their communion those who openly 
violated the law of Christ. The second thing here rendered 
manifest, is, that the apostle as an individual possessed the 
right of excommunication. The apostolic churches were not 
independent democratic communities, vested with supreme 
authority over their own members. Paul could cast out of 
their communion whom he would. He was indeed clothed 
with supernatural power which enabled him to deliver offend- 
ers “unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” 1 Cor. 5, 5, 
but this was not all. This presupposed the power of excom- 
munication, It was the ability miraculously to punish with 
corporeal evils those whom he cut off from the church. This 
right to discipline, as it is not to be merged into the super- 
natural gift just referred to, so it is not to be referred to the 
inspiration and consequent infallibility of the apostles, The 
apostles were infallible as teachers, but not as men or as dis- 
ciplinarians. They received unrenewed men into the church, 
as in the case of Simon Magus. They did not pretend to read 
the heart, much less to be omniscient. Paul proposed to ar- 
rive at the knowledge of offences by judicial examination. 
He avowed his purpose to condemn no one on his own judg- 
ment or knowledge, but only on the testimony of two or three 
witnesses. This right to exercise discipline which Paul 
claimed was not founded on his miraculous gifts, but on his 
ministerial office. 


3. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, 
which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you. 


302 II. CORINTHIANS 18, 4. 


This is part of the sentence begun inv. 2. ‘I will not 
spare since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me. Ols- 
hausen says the sense of the context is, ‘Since they wished to 


put the apostle to the test and see whether Christ was in him, 


they had better try themselves and see whether Christ was in 
them. If Christ was in them, they would recognize the power 
of God in the apostle’s weakness.’ This supposes v. 4 to be a 
parenthesis, and connects ἐπεὶ δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε of ¥. 3, with éav- 
τοὺς δοκιμάζετε οὖν. 5. But this is arbitrary and unnatural, as 
it is unnecessary, there being no indication of want of conti- 
nuity in the connection. proof of Christ, may mean, ‘a 


proof which Christ gives,’ or, ‘a proof that Christ speaks in | 


me.” De Wette and Meyer prefer the former, on account of 
the following, ‘who is not weak,’ which agrees better with 
the assumption that Χριστοῦ is the genitive of the subject. 
‘Since ye seek a proof or manifestation of Christ who speaks 
in me, who is not weak. Calvin’s idea is that it was not 
Paul, but Christ, that the Corinthians were questioning. “It 
is Christ who speaks in me; when therefore you question my 
doctrine, it is not me, but him whom you offend.” He refers 
to Num. 16,11, where murmuring against Moses and Aaron 
is represented as murmuring against God. Compare also 
Isaiah 7,13. The common interpretation, however, is more 
in keeping with the drift of the whole context. What the 
false teachers and their adherents denied, was Paul’s apostle- 
ship; what they demanded was proof that Christ spoke in 
him, or that he was a messenger of Christ. Since the evi- 
dence which he had already given in word and deed had not 
satisfied them, he was about to give them a proof which they 
would find it difficult to resist. Who is not weak as concerns 
you, but is mighty among you. ‘The messenger and organ 
of Christ was not to be rejected or offended with impunity, 
since Christ was not weak, but powerful. His power had 
been proved among them not only in the conversion of multi- 
tudes, but by signs and wonders, and by divers manifestations 
of omnipotence. 


4. For though he was crucified through weakness, 
yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are 
weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power 
of God toward you. | 


ee... 


ee ee eo 


II. CORINTHIANS 13, 4. 303 


Christ is divinely powerful, for though he died as a man, 
he lives as God. He had a feeble human nature, but also an 
omnipotent divine nature. So we his apostles, though in one 
aspect weak, in another are strong. We are associated with 
Christ both in his weakness and in his power; in his death 
and in his life. or though. The text is doubtful. The 
common edition has καὶ yap «i, for even if, which the Vulgate 
renders etsi and the English version although, taking καὶ εἰ 
(even if) as equivalent to εἰ καί, if even. Many MSS, and 
editors omit the «i. The sense then is, ‘For he was even cru- 
cified through weakness” The common text gives a clear 
meaning, ‘ For even if he were crucified through weakness, 
The case is hypothetically presented. Through weakness, ἐκ 
ἀσϑενείας. His weakness was the cause or necessary condition 
and evidence of his death; not of course as implying that his 
death was not voluntary, for our Lord said he laid down his 
life of himself; but the assumption of a weak human nature 
liable to death, was of course necessary, in order that the 
eternal Son of God should be capable of death. Comp. Phil. 
2,9. Heb. 2,14,15. His death, therefore, was the evidence 
of weakness, in the sense of having a weak, or mortal nature. 
Yet he liveth by the power of God. The same person who 
died, now lives. That complex person, having a perfect hu- 
man and a true divine nature hypostatically united, rose from 
the dead, and lives forever, and therefore can manifest the di- 
vine power which the apostle attributed to him. The resur- 
rection of Christ is sometimes referred to God, as in Rom, 6, 
4, Eph. 1, 20. Phil. 2,9; sometimes to himself, as in Matt. 
26,61. Mark 14, 58. John 2,19. 10,18. This is done on the 
same principle that the works of creation and providence are 
referred sometimes to the Father and sometimes to the Son, 
That principle is the unity of the divine nature, or the identity 
of the persons of the Trinity as to essence. They are the 
same in substance, and therefore the works ad extra of the 
one are the works of the others also. It is not, however, the 
fact that the resurrection of Christ was effected by the power 
of God, but the fact that he is now alive and clothed with 
divine power, that the apostle urges as pertinent to his object. 
For we also, ἄς. The connection of this clause may be with 
the immediately preceding one, ‘Christ liveth by the power 
of God, for we live” ‘The life which the apostle possessed 
and manifested being derived from Christ, was proof that 
Christ still lived. Or the connection is with the close of the 


304 II. CORINTHIANS 13, 4. 


preceding verse. ‘Christ is powerful among you, 1. Because 
though he died as a man, he lives; and 2. Because though we 
are weak, we are strong in him. In either way the sense is 
substantially the same. In what sense does the apostle here 
speak of himself as weak? It is not a moral weakness, for it 
is conditioned by his communion with Christ; we are weak 
in him. It is not subjection to those sufferings which were a 
proof of weakness and are therefore called infirmities ; be- 
cause the context does not call for any reference to the apos- 
tle’s sufferings. Nor does it mean a weakness in the estima- 
tion of others, 1. e. that he was despised. It is obviously 
antithetical to the strength or power of which he was a 
partaker; and as the power which he threatened to exercise 
and demonstrate was the power to punish, so the weakness 
of which he speaks was the absence of the manifestation of 
that power. He in Christ, that is, in virtue of his fellowship 
with Christ, was when in Corinth weak and forbearing, as 
though he had no power to vindicate his authority; just as 
Christ was weak in the hands of his enemies when they led 
him away to be crucified. But as Christ’s weakness was 
voluntary, as there rested latent in the suffering Lamb of God 
the resources of almighty power; so in the meek, forbearing 
apostle was the plenitude of supernatural power which he de- 
rived from his ascended master. We shall live with him. 
“ Vitam,” says Calvin, “opponit infirmitati: ideoque hoc 
nomiue florentem et plenum dignitatis statum intelligit.” As 
the life of Christ subsequent to his resurrection was a state in 
which he assumed the exercise and manifestation of the power 
inherent in him as the Son of God, so the life of which Paul 
here speaks, was the state in which he manifested the apostolie 
power with which he was invested. There is no reference to 
the future or eternal life of which Paul, as a believer, was here- 
after to partake. He is vindicating the propriety of his de- 
nunciation of chastisement to the disobedient in Corinth, 
Though he had been among them as weak and forbearing, 
yet he would manifest that he was alive in the sense of havin 
vower to enforce his commands. By the power of God. 

aul’s power was a manifestation of the power of God. It 
was derived from God. It was not his own either in its 
source or in its exercise, He could do nothing, as he after- 
wards says, against the truth. Toward you; i. 6. we shall 
live toward you. We shall exercise our authority, or manifest 
our apostolic life and power in relation to you. 


Sse  ΉΎΌΎΌΥΞΟΥΥΎΝ ᾿Ξ 


II. CORINTHIANS 13, ὅ. 305 


5. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith ; 

it your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, 

ow that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be repro- 
bates ? 


There are two links of association between this verse ana 
what precedes. They had been trying the apostle, seeking 
proof of Christ speaking in him. He tells them they had bet- 
ter examine themselves and see whether Christ was in them. 
Hence the antithesis between ἑαυτοὺς (yourselves) placed be- 
fore the verb for the sake of emphasis, and δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε (ye 
seek a proof, &c,) of v.3. ‘Ye would prove me—prove your- 
selves.’ Another idea, however, and perhaps a more important 
one is this, ‘ Ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, seek it 
in yourselves. Know ye not that Christ is in you (unless you 
be reprobates), and if he is in you, if you are really members 
of his body, ye will know that he isin me.? The passage in 
this view is aneregone to those in which the apostle appeals to 
the people as seals of his ministry, 1 Cor. 9, 1, and as his let- 
ters of commendation, 3, 2, Zo examine and to prove mean 
the same thing. Both express the idea of trying or putting 
to the test to ascertain the nature or character of the person 
or thing tried. Whether ye be in the faith, that is, whether 
you really have faith, or are Christians only in name. This 
exhortation to self-examination supposes, on the one hand, 
that faith is self-manifesting, that it reveals itself in the con- 
sciousness and by its fruits; and, on the other hand, that it 
may exist and be genuine and yet not be known as true faith 
by the believer himself. Only what is doubtful needs to be 
determined by examination. The fact, therefore, that we are 
commanded to examine ourselves to see whether we are in 
the faith, proves that a true believer may doubt of his good 
estate, In other words, it proves that assurance is not essen- 
tial to faith. Calvin, in his antagonism to the Romish doc- 
trine that assurance is unattainable in this life, and that all 
claims to it are unscriptural and fanatical, draws the directly 
0 ite conclusion from this passage. Hie locus, he says, 
valet ad probandam fidei certitudinem, quam nobis Sorbonici 
sophistze τ θη meray imo penitus exterminarunt ex hominum 
animis: temeritatis damnant, quotquot persuasi sunt se esse 
Christi membra, et illum habere in se manentem; nam morali 
quam vocant, conjectura, hoc est, sola opinione contentos esse 


806 II. CORINTHIANS 18, 5. 


nos jubent, ut conscientiz perpetuo suspense hereant ac 
perplexe. Quid autem hic Paulus? reprobos esse testatur 
quicunque dubitant an possideant Christum, et sint ex illius: 
corpore. Quare sit nobis hee sola recta fides, que facit ut 
tuto, neque dubia opinione, sed stabili constantique certitudi- 
ne, in gratia Dei acquiescamus. Elsewhere, however, Calvin 
teaches a different doctrine, in so far as he admits that true 
believers are often disturbed by serious doubts and inward 
conflicts. See his Institutes, Lib. iii. cap. ii. 17, and Lib. iv. 
cap. xiv. 7. 8. <a 

Know ye not your own selves how that Christ is in you, 
This version overlooks the connecting particle 7 (or), the force 
of which indeed it is not easy to see. It may be that the 
apostle designed in these words to shame or to rouse them. 
‘Examine yourselves, o7 are you so besotted or ignorant as 
not to know that Christ is in you; that some thing is to be 
discovered by self-examination, unless ye are no Christians at 
all’ It may, however, be a direct appeal to the consciousness 
of his readers. ‘Do you not recognize in yourselves, that is, 
are ye not conscious, that Christ is in you. The construction 
in this clause is analogous to that in 1 Cor. 14, 37 and 16, 15. 
‘Know yourselves that, &c.,? equivalent to ‘know that. 
Winer 63,3. The expression Christ is in you, does not mean 
‘Christ is among you as a people.’ It refers to an indwelling 
of Christ in the individual believer, as is plain from such pas- 
sages as Gal. 2, 20, “Christ liveth in me,” and Gal. 4, 19. 
Rom, 8,10. Christ dwells in his people by his Spirit. The 
presence of the Spirit is the presence of Christ. This is not a 
mere figurative expression, as when we say we have a friend 
in our heart—but areal truth. The Spirit of Christ, the Holy 
Ghost, is in the people of God collectively and individually, 
the ever-present source of a new kind of life, so that if any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his. Rom. 8, 9. 
Unless ye be reprobates. The word reprobate, in its theologi- 
cal sense, means one who is judicially abandoned to everlast- 
ing perdition. Such is obviously not its sense here, otherwise 
all those not now converted would perish forever. The word 
is to be taken in its ordinary meaning, disapproved, unworthy 
of approbation. Any person or thing which cannot stand the 
test 15 ἀδόκιμος. Those therefore in whom Christ does not 
dwell cannot stand the test, and are proved to be Christians, 
if at all, only in name. 


II) CORINTHIANS 13, 6. 7. 307 


6. But I trust that ye shall know that we are not 
reprobates. 


In v. 3 Paul had said that the Corinthians sought δοκιμήν 
(evidence) that Christ was in him as an apostle. He exhorted 
them to seek evidence that he was in them as believers. If 
they should prove to be (ἀδόκιμος) without evidence, he was 
satisfied that they would find that he was not ἀδόκιμος. The 
δοκιμή (or evidence) of Christ speaking in him which he pro- 
posed or threatened to give, was the exercise of the apostolic 

wer which resulted from the indwelling of Christ, and there- 
ore proved his presence. He was loath, however, to give 
that evidence; he would rather be (ἀδόκιμος) without that 
evidence; and he therefore adds, 


7. Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that 
we should appear approved, but that ye should do that 
which is honest, though we be as reprobates. 


Now I pray God that ye do no evil ; that is, I pray that 
ye may not give occasion for me to give the evidence of Christ 
speaking in me, which I have threatened to give, in case of 
your continued disobedience. So far from desiring an oppor-- 
tunity of exhibiting my supernatural power, I earnestly desire 
that there may be no occasion for its exercise, The interpre- 
tation which Grotius, and after him Flatt, Billroth, and others 
give of this clause, ‘I pray God that I may do you no evil,’ is 
possible so far as the words are concerned, as ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς 
κακόν may mean either, to do you evil, or, that you do evil. 
But to do evil is not to punish. And had Paul intended to 
say, ‘I pray God that I may not punish you,’ he certainly 
would have chosen some more suitable expression. Besides, 
ποιῆσαι κακόν is the opposite of ποιῆτε τὸ καλόν (ye may do 
right) in this same verse. Not that we should appear ap» 
proved, &c. This and the following clause give the reason 
of the prayer just uttered. The negative statement of that 
reason comes first. He did not desire their good estate for 
the selfish reason that he might appear, 1. e. stand forth ap- 
parent, as δόκιμος (approved), as one concerning whom there 
could be no doubt that Christ dwelt in him. There’were dif- 
ferent kinds of evidence of the validity of Paul’s claims asa 
believer and as an apostle ; his holy life and multiform labours ; 
signs and wonders; the apostolic power with which he was 


308 II. CORINTHIANS 13, 8. 


clothed ; his success in preaching, or the number and charac- 
ter of his converts. The good state of the Corinthian church 
was therefore an evidence that he was approved, i. e. could 
stand the test. This, however, as he says, was not the reason 
why he prayed that they might do no evil. That reason, as 
stated positively, was, that ye should do that which is honest. 
That is, it was their good, and not his own recognition, that 
he had at heart. Do what is honest, τὸ καλὸν ποιῆτε, that ye 
may do the good, the beautiful, what is at once right and 
pleasing. Zhough we be as reprobates, ἀδόκιμοι, without ap- 
probation. Paul was earnestly desirous that the Corinthians 
should do what was right, although the consequence was that 
he should have no opportunity of giving that δοκιμήν (evi- 
dence) of Christ speaking in him which he had threatened to 
give, and thus, in that respect, be ἀδόκιμος, without evidence. 
There is such a play on words in this whole connection that 
the sense of the passage is much plainer in the Greek than it 
is in the English version. This view of the passage is simple 
and suited to the connection, and is commonly adopted. 
Calvin and others interpret it more generally and without 
specific reference to the connection. ‘‘ Concerning myself,” 
he makes the apostle say, “I am not solicitous; I only fear 
lest ye should offend God. I am ready to appear as repro- 
bate, if you are free of offence. Reprobate, I mean, in the 
judgment of men, who often reject those who are worthy of 
special honour.” This is the general sense, but the peculiar 
colouring of the passage is thus lost. 


8. For we can do nothing against the truth, but 
for the truth. 


This verse is connected with the last clause of the preced- 
ing. ‘We shall, in one sense, be ἀδόκιμοι (without evidence) 
if you do what is right, for we can do nothing against the 
truth, but are powerful only for the truth’ That is, ‘We ean 
exercise the apostolic and supernatural power which is the 
evidence of Christ speaking in us, only in behalf of the truth.’ 
By the truth is not to be understood moral excellence, or rec- 
titude—a sense indeed which the word ἀλήϑεια often has when 
antithetical to unrighteousness; nor does it mean judicial rec- 
titude specifically, i. e. that standard to which a judge should 
be conformed, or, as Bengel explains it, “the exact authority 
to be exercised over the Corinthians ;” but it means truth in 


ee ee a υοσστονο τ' ΡΣ 


a a ee a 


Il. CORINTHIANS 13, 9. 10. 309 


its religious, scriptural sense; that revelation which God has 
made in his word as the rule of our faith and practice. This 

ge is of special interest as fixing the limits of all ecclesi- 
astical power, whether ordinary or miraculous. The decision 
of the apostle, if against the truth, availed nothing in the sight 
of God; the supernatural power with which he was invested 
forsook his arm, if raised against God’s own people. The 
promise of our Lord, that what the church binds on earth 
shall be bound in heaven, is limited by the condition that her 
decisions be in accordance with the truth. The doctrine of 
the extreme Romish party that acts of discipline are effectual 
in cutting off from the true church and the communion of 
God, even clave errante, i.e. when the chureh errs in her 
knowledge of the facts, is utterly inconsistent with Paul’s 
doctrine. He claimed no such power. 


9. For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are 
strong: and this also we wish, (even) your perfection. 


If connected with the preceding clause the sense of this 
verse is, ‘We can act only for the truth, for we have no de- 
sire to exercise our power to punish; we are glad when we are 
weak” ‘The meaning is better if this verse is regarded as co- 
ordinate with verse 8, and subordinate to v. 7. ‘We desire 
that you should do right, though we appear as ἀδόκιμοι (with- 
out evidence), for we are glad when we are weak.’ That is, 
we are glad when we have no occasion to exercise or manifest 
our power to punish, This is evidently the sense in which the 
word weak is to be here taken. It does not mean weak in 
the estimation of men, that is, despised as unworthy of respect. 
And ye are strong, i. 6. such as cannot be overcome, They 
were strong when they were good. Their goodness was a 
sure protection from the disciplinary power of the apostle, 
This also we wish, viz. your perfection. That is, we are not 
only glad when you are strong, but we pray for your complete 
establishment. Perfection, κατάρτισις, from καταρτίζω, in the 
sense to put in complete order. Paul prayed that they might 
be perfectly restored from the state of confusion, contention, 
at evil into which they had fallen. 


10. Therefore I write these things being absent, 


310 Il. CORINTHIANS 13, 10.— 


lest being present I should use sharpness, according to 
the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, 
and not to destruction. 


_ Therefore, i. e. because I desire your good, and because I 
prefer to appear ἀδόκιμος, without proof, so far as the proof of 
my apostleship consists in the exercise of my power to punish. 
This is the reason why the apostle wrote these exhortations 
and warnings, lest being present I should use sharpness, i.e. - 
be obliged to exercise severity in dealing with offenders. 
The expression is ἀποτόμως χρήσωμαι, where ὑμῖν must be su 

plied, ‘lest I should use yow sharply” According to the 
power, The word is ἐξουσίαν, which includes the ideas of 
ability and authority or right. Paul was invested both with — 
the authority to punish offenders and with the power to carry 
his judgments into effect. Which the Lord hath given me. 
His authority was not self-assumed, and his power was not 
derived from himself. They were the gifts of the Lord, the 
only source of either in the church. Zhe Lord is of course 
Christ, whose divine power and omnipresence are taken for 
granted. Paul everywhere as much assumes that the Lord 
Jesus is invested with divine attributes and entitled to divine 
worship, as God himself. Nothing can be more foreign to 
the whole spirit of the New Testament than the idea, that 
Christ, having finished his work on earth as a teacher and 
witness, has passed away so as to be no longer present with 
his people. The whole Scriptures, on the contrary, assume 
that he is everywhere present in knowledge and power, the 
source of all grace, strength and consolation, the object of the 
religious affections, and of the acts of religious worship. Jor 
edification, and not for destruction. 'This not only expresses 
the design with which Paul was invested and endowed with 
apostolic power, but it teaches that the power itself could be 
exercised only for good. Christ would not sanction an unjust 
decision, or clothe the arm of man with supernatural power to 
inflict unmerited punishment. The apostles could not strike 
a saint with blindness nor deliver a child of God unto Satan. 
The church and its ministers are in the same predicament still. 
They are powerful only for good. Their mistaken decisions 
or unrighteous judgments are of no avail. They affect the 
standing of the true believer in the sight of God no more 
than the judgments of the Jewish synagogues when they cast 
out the early disciples as evil, Truth and holiness are a sure 


II. CORINTHIANS 18, 11. 311 


defence against all ecclesiastical power. No one can harm us, 
if we be followers of that which is good. 1 Peter 3, 13. 


_ 1]. Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of 
good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the 
God of love and peace shall be with you. 


The severe rebukes contained in the preceding chap 
are softened down by the parental and apostolic tone assum 
in these concluding verses. He addresses them as brethren, 
members of the family of God and of the body of Christ. 
Farewell, χαίρετε; literally, rejoice, or, joy to you. It is used 
often in salutations, as Hail! On account of what follows it 
is better to take it as an exhortation to spiritual joy.. Rejoice, 
i, e.in the Lord. In Phil. 3, 1 and 4, 4 we have the same ex- 
hortation, χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ, Joy in redemption, rejoicing in 
our union and communion with the Lord is one of our highest 
duties, Blessings so infinite as these should not be received 
with indifference. Joy is the atmosphere of heaven, and the 
more we have of it on earth, the more heavenly shall we be 
in character and temper. Be perfect, καρτίζεσϑε, reform your- 
selves ; correct the evils which prevail within and among you. 
Be of good comfort, παρακαλεῖσϑε, which may be rendered, 
exhort one another. This latter interpretation is perhaps 
preferable, because more distinct from the preceding com- 
mand. ‘The exhortation to rejoice includes that to be of good 
comfort. Be of one mind, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε, be united in faith 
in feeling, and in object. Cognate with this is the exhorta- 
tion, Live in peace. One of the greatest evils prevailing” in 
Corinth, as we learn from 1 Cor. 1, 10-12, was the contentions 
of the various parties into which the church was divided. 
And the God of love and peace, i, 6. God is the author of love 
and of peace, shall be with you. The existence of love and 

ace is the condition of the presence of the God of peace. 
e withdraws the manifestations of his presence from the soul 
disturbed by angry passions, and from a community torn by 
dissensions. We have here the familiar Christian paradox. 
God’s presence produces love and peace, and we must have 
love and peace in order to have his presence. God gives 
what he commands. God gives, but we must cherish his 
i His agency does not supersede ours, but mingles with 
it and becomes one with it in our consciousness. e work 


312 11. CORINTHIANS 13, 12. 13. 


out our own salvation, while God works in us. Our duty is 
to yield ourselves to the operation of God, and to exert our 
faculties as though the effect desired were in our own power, 
and leave to his almighty, mystic co-operation its own gra- 
cious office. The man with the withered hand, did some. 
thing when he stretched it forth, although the power to move 
was divinely given, It is vain for us to pray for the presence 
of the God of love and peace, unless we strive to free our 
hearts from all evil passions. Shall be with you ; shall mani- 
fest his presence, his glory and his love. This gives perfect 
peace, and fills the soul with joy unspeakable and full of glory. 
It is the restoration of the original and normal relation be- 
tween God and the soul, and secures at once its purification 
and blessedness. He who has the presence of God can feel 
ne want, 


12. Greet one another with a holy kiss. 


The kiss was the expression of fellowship and affection. 
It was and is in the East the common mode of salutation 
among friends. A holy kiss, is a kiss which expresses Chris- 
tian communion and love. It was the usage in Christian as- 
semblies for the men to kiss the minister and each other, 
especially at the celebration of the Lord’s supper. It did not 
go out of use in the Western churches until about the thir- 
teenth century, and is still observed among some eastern 
sects. It is not a command of perpetual obligation, as the 
spirit of the command is that Christians should express their 
mutual love in the way sanctioned by the age and community 
in which they live. 


13. All the sai:ts salute you. 


The saints, ia scriptural usage, are not those who are 
complete in glory, but believers, separated from the world, 
consecrated to God, and inwardly purified. This term, there- 
fore, expresses the character and the relations, not of a class 
among God’s people, but of the disciples of Christ as such. 
They are all, if sincere, separated from the world, distin- 
guished from men of the world as to their objects of desire 
and pursuit, and as to the rules by which they are governed ; 
they are consecrated to the service and worship of God, as a 
holy people; and they are cleansed from the guilt and con- 


EE ᾽» ον» ὍΨ ὉΩ» 


II. CORINTHIANS 18, 14. $13 


trolling power of sin. They are therefore bound to live in 
accordance with this character. All the saints, i. e. all those 
in the place in which Paul then was. The communion of 
saints includes all believers who feel themselves to be one 
body in Christ. Salute wou, that is, wish you salvation, which 
includes all good. 


14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, 
(be) with you all. Amen. 


This comprehensive benediction closes the epistle. It in- 
cludes all the benefits of redemption. First, the grace, or fa- 
vour, of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the theanthropical 
designation of our blessed Saviour. It includes or indicates 
his divine nature, he is our Lord; his human nature, he is Je- 
sus; his office, he is the Christ, the Messiah, the long-promised 
Redeemer. It is the favour, the unmerited love and all that 
springs from it, of this divine person clothed in our nature, and 
who as the theanthropos is invested with the office of Messiah, 
the headship over his own people and all power in heaven and 
earth, that the apostle invokes for all his believing readers. 
Every one feels that this is precisely what he, as a guilty, pol- 
luted, helpless sinner, needs. If this glorious, mysteriously 
constituted, exalted Saviour, Son of God and Son of man, 
makes us the objects of his favour, then is our present security 
and ultimate salvation rendered certain. Zhe love of God. 
In one view the love of God is the source of redemption. 
God manifested his love in giving his Son for us, Rom. 5, 8. 
But in another view the love of God to us is due to the grace 
and work of Christ. That is, the manifestation of that love 
in the pardon, sanctification and salvation of men, was con- 
ditional on the work of Christ. We are reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son. His death as a satisfaction for our 
sins Was necessary in order to our being actually introduced 
into the fellowship of God and made partakers of his love. 
Therefore the apostle puts the grace of Christ before the love 
of God, as, in the sense mentioned, the necessary condition of 
its manifestation. And the communion (κοινωνία, the partici- 
pation) of the Holy Ghost. The primary object of the death 
of Christ was the communication of the Holy Spirit. He re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law that we might receive 

1a : | 


314 II. CORINTHIANS 18, 14. 


the promise of the Spirit, Gal. 3, 13.14. Τῷ is the gift of the 
Holy Ghost secured in the covenant of redemption by the 
death of Christ that applies to us the benefits of his mediation. 
As the gift of the Spirit is secured to all the people of God, 
they are κοινωνοί, joint partakers, of the Holy Ghost, and 
thereby made one body. ‘This is the ground of the commu- 
nion of saints in which the church universal professes her faith. 

The distinct personality and the divinity of the Son, the 
Father, and the Holy Spirit, to each of whom prayer is ad- 
dressed, is here taken for granted. And therefore this pas- 
sage is a clear recognition of the doctrine of the Trinity, which 
is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. For a Christian 
is one who seeks and enjoys the grace of the Lord Jesus, the 
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost. 


See 


m/s 


eee 
Fee 
᾿ 


a 


- 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


JUN 11 1948 
7 JUN 29 106 
8 Mars 70RF 198g 
REC’D LD ee We 
FEB 20 1957. 
RECLIVED 
nowa’S0)2 | JUN11 68-704 
REC’D LD 
MAR 20 1968 
AY 9 3 1968 


LD 21-100m-9,’47 (A5702s16)476 


a 


—— —_— μὰς ΝΕ ne 
ee ere =a - — asi —— τ - 
= — -: = ----. 
“ὦ “«ἷς μὰς αν ἀνεὶς. —— 
---- rr iat ᾿ ner cues βωμόν ον. δ" ———+s*4 _ 
Sener pesca: — = = ᾿ ian — ΚΣ ᾿ 
———a ----------. --- --- ao 
————— <a pare πον τς = ᾿ Seperate: = ——— a 
—_ «Ὁ -τ pee — 
το —— So α.. 22 
-- .-« --- - «ὦν. ~ - 
—_ —= 
.“««-- — 


HET 


. 


| 


i 


ΠΥ 


πο Te ον πους 


i 


MLGEStE Tassie teat 


i i 


tl 
ttt 


| 


tf 


Hii 
| 
} 


i 


“ΜΙ 


ΜΗ Μὰ 


if 
| 


cca τῳ ας 


ῇ 


" aver 
HHH 


—— 


| 


—— Ξξξε ΞξεΞξ -Ξξῷ 
ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
———————— Ξ 
ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ  -Ξξξξεξ 
——— 
ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞὄ 
ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΙΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
———— 3: ΞΞΞΞΞΞΣΣΣΣΣΣ: 

—— = 

— 

oe 

= 
ἘΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 

= Ξ 


ΗΉΤΗ 


